Oral
Answers to
Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

East Africa: Trading Opportunities

Andrew Jones: What steps her Department is taking to promote trading opportunities to encourage development in East Africa.

Penny Mordaunt: The UK supports regional trade and development by improving infrastructure and cutting red tape through our flagship programme TradeMark East Africa, which has helped to reduce import times at the Mombasa port by 50%. We will also support the region by ensuring that there is continuity in market access arrangements post-EU exit.

Andrew Jones: In the past decade more than 1 billion people have been lifted out of poverty, largely thanks to free trade. Owing to my commercial experience, I have seen for myself the quality of the produce from the agricultural sector in East Africa, and I am not surprised that it has found a strong export market. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best and most sustainable way out of poverty is through trade?

Penny Mordaunt: I agree wholeheartedly. The greatest progress that has been made towards the first global goal has resulted from the liberalisation of world trade. We want to move more nations from aid to trade, because that is where their future lies.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State may know that the countries of East Africa are some of the worst performers in terms of road deaths and serious road accidents. Could part of the trading relationship involve trade in both services and technology to help to bring down those dreadful casualty figures?

Penny Mordaunt: Absolutely. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and thank him for the work he does on a critical issue that results in an enormous number of deaths every year. I think there will be a greater onus on us to provide technical support for developing countries, and cutting the number of road deaths is clearly an area in which that technical support will be needed.

Stephen Crabb: Key to boosting East African trade is continuing to break down non-tariff barriers between East African countries, reduce transportation costs, and reduce import-export clearance times. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the TradeMark East Africa programme has an important continuing role in helping to boost trade even further?

Penny Mordaunt: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Frictionless trade is a good thing, and the corridor that TradeMark East Africa has provided has cut border times dramatically, as well as cutting corruption. We are funding the second leg of that trade corridor, and it has done amazing work for the region’s prosperity.

Patrick Grady: If we are to promote trade, we need to be able to promote travel. However, the Scotland Malawi Partnership and others have received a litany of complaints from people who want to come to the United Kingdom and sell their goods from East Africa, but have been denied visas by the Home Office. Will the Secretary of State meet representatives of the Home Office as a matter of urgency to ensure that they sort out the mess of the East African visa system?

Penny Mordaunt: I have frequent dialogues with colleagues throughout the Government. As the hon. Gentleman will know, 70 of my staff are embedded in the Department for International Trade to deal with these issues, particularly in respect of developing nations, but if he knows of any specific cases and will pass them on to me, I shall be happy to look at them.

Kate Osamor: In Lisbon 11 years ago, the historic joint Africa-EU strategy was launched. That strategy, which was based on the principles of ownership, partnership and solidarity, has already had to withstand the economic impact of the global financial crisis and the eurozone crisis. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the social and economic impact that Brexit will have on it?

Penny Mordaunt: The fact that we will be able to make our own trade arrangements with developing countries will be of massive advantage to those countries, and the nations with which we work are incredibly excited about the possibilities that will result from our leaving the EU. I think that we should be optimistic about Africa’s future, and its leaders are optimistic, but as well as promoting trade we must help them to combat illicit money flows. If we add up everything that goes into those nations, we see that it is tiny in comparison with what leaves them as a result of corruption and illicit flows. We will deal with both.

Kate Osamor: I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s answer, but I have to say that I do not share her optimism. Along with many others, I believe that the joint Africa-EU strategy marked a new phase in Africa-EU relations, opening a gateway to future trade deals based on benefits for African communities, not just European corporations. How will the Secretary of State ensure that any future deals negotiated by her Government benefit rather than damage the livelihoods of the world’s poorest people?

Penny Mordaunt: Because at the heart of our trade strategy as we leave the EU are developing nations—we want to give them preferential treatment and support them in their ambitions. I would point to the evidence that since we announced that we are leaving the EU, we have made huge progress on initiatives like the Sahel alliance and a greater focus with bilateral partners including France on our work together in Africa. I urge the hon. Lady to be optimistic about the future.

Technology

Vicky Ford: What steps she is taking to promote the development of technology in developing countries.

Alan Mak: What steps she is taking to promote the development of technology in developing countries.

Harriett Baldwin: Investments from our aid budget in technologies are saving and changing lives all over the world. Half of our research budget this year is for new technologies in developing countries in health, agriculture, climate, clean energy, water and education and for humanitarian response in emergencies.

Vicky Ford: The Phoenix rotary club in Chelmsford supports the One Last Push campaign to eradicate polio, and new technology means that polio workers on the ground can target efforts where they are most needed. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this Government will continue to support the One Last Push campaign and end polio for good?

Harriett Baldwin: This question gives me an opportunity to pay tribute not only to the rotary club my hon. Friend mentions but to Rotarians across the world who have been working hard on this push to eradicate polio. UK Aid has been at their side throughout this journey; we have eradicated something like 99% of the world’s polio cases, but we must continue to push for that  final 1%.

Alan Mak: In April, Commonwealth Heads of Government committed to achieving quality eye care for all. Will my hon. Friend meet me and other vision campaigners to ensure that vision is taken seriously at this month’s global disability summit?

Harriett Baldwin: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting such an important issue. As someone who is extremely myopic, I benefit from glasses. This is an incredibly important aspect of what we can do, and at this month’s disability summit the world will be coming together to pledge what more it can do to help with people’s inclusion around the world, and certainly vision will play a key role.

Catherine McKinnell: Last week I met some of CAFOD’s Pacific climate warriors who campaign for environmental justice so that they can protect their homes so that we can all work together to protect our common home. What are the British Government doing to promote the development  of technology in places that suffer the most catastrophic effects of climate change that ultimately affect the UK too?

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Lady is right to highlight this issue. She will be aware of the announcements we made alongside so many of the small island states at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in April to help them with technology to adapt to the changing climate, and also the additional £61 million announced by the Prime Minister to tackle the scourge of plastics in our oceans.

Gregory Campbell: Some small charities are working exceptionally hard in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly using technology to deliver much needed clean drinking water to those areas. What help can the Government offer to those charities to deliver for those people in that exceptionally dry part of the continent of Africa?

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the challenges posed by climate change, particularly to the countries nearest the Sahara. UK Aid is working very closely with them, and investments in technology are helping to address that and provide drinking water for many hundreds of thousands of people in sub-Saharan Africa.

Antoinette Sandbach: The development of the M-Pesa payment system in Kenya with the help of DFID has absolutely transformed the economy, particularly for small traders. What other steps and similar developments can my hon. Friend outline that would improve the Kenyan economy?

Harriett Baldwin: This is another great example of how UK Aid can work to unlock a payment system that in many ways leapfrogs what we have here in the UK: people can pay from their mobile phone for a range of technologies and goods. Recently we had a solar fridge in DFID, and M-KOPA Solar is helping poor people in Kenya and other countries to pay for those fridges by using that technology.

Chris Law: After continued pressure from these Scottish National party Benches, it was reassuring to hear after meeting the World Bank last week that it has made a firm commitment to no longer finance upstream oil and gas after 2019. However, the UK Government are still spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money funding fossil fuel projects in countries that are already bearing the worst brunt of climate change. Will the Minister of State today match the World Bank commitment to stop funding polluting fuels by 2019?

Harriett Baldwin: Along with colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, we are doing a lot to encourage many of these countries not only to power past coal and fossil fuels but to invest considerable amounts in renewable energy. I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration to work with developing countries to power past fossil fuels.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Ah! I thought the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) wanted to come in on this question, but he has perambulated to Question 5. Well, so be it. That is not a scandal.

Venezuela: Vulnerable People

Andrew Rosindell: What assistance her Department is providing to vulnerable people in Venezuela.

Alistair Burt: We are deeply concerned by the worsening crisis in Venezuela. Too many Venezuelans are suffering the consequences of the Maduro Government’s mismanagement. While we are urging the Venezuelan Government to accept humanitarian aid, we are deploying two humanitarian advisers to the region in support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s efforts to push the Government of Venezuela to meet the needs of their population.

Andrew Rosindell: The Minister will be aware of the United Nations human rights report that details the complete erosion of the rule of law and human rights in Venezuela. Will he explain to the House what the UK is doing to support economic reform and stability in the region, to ensure that the money is spent in the right place while the Venezuelan Government still refuse to acknowledge that there is a humanitarian crisis?

Alistair Burt: We are providing support in the crisis and to the region through the funding of key UN and humanitarian agencies, but, as my hon. Friend says, this is limited because of the Venezuelan Government’s refusal to admit the seriousness and reality of the situation. We are urging them to address the most urgent needs of their own population.

Stephen Twigg: Very large numbers of people are fleeing the situation in Venezuela, particularly into neighbouring Colombia. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to address that situation, and what opportunity the Government see for the proposed UN global compact for refugees to address crises such as this one?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the regional crisis and the growing global problem of refugees in relation to the length of time they stay in host states and their prospects of returning. Venezuela is not the only affected area. We continue to support UN agencies in relation to this and we are playing a leading part in creating the new compact for refugees.

Orphanages

Lisa Cameron: What steps her Department is taking to support children in orphanages in developing countries.

Penny Mordaunt: DFID’s primary focus is to tackle the underlying drivers of institutionalisation. We address these through poverty reduction programmes and through our strong focus on education, nutrition, health, economic  development and social protection. Through UK Aid Match, we are funding charities such as Hope and Homes for Children, which supports children into family-based and community-based care.

Lisa Cameron: We all recall the harrowing reports of disabled children being tied to rough bed frames or left on sodden mattresses on the floor and abandoned in orphanages around the developing world. Given that the ability to thrive entails the right to grow up in a family, what priority is the Department giving to finding foster families for disabled children in orphanages?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Lady touches on a subject close to my heart. When I was an aid worker in the former eastern bloc, I worked in the hospitals and orphanages there. Many of the children were not orphans as we would understand the term; they had families. We believe that the best way to care for and develop children, whatever their circumstances and whether they have a disability or not, is in a family or community setting. The disability summit that is coming up will afford us the opportunity to focus on the needs of the specific group that the hon. Lady refers to.

Gary Streeter: I am sure the Secretary of State shares my horror at recent reports about the sex trafficking and exploitation of children in unmonitored orphanages. Is this not something that the international community should look to stamp out, and will she do her utmost to move it up the global political agenda for action?

Penny Mordaunt: We will certainly do that. DFID does not, as a policy, fund these types of institutions. We have traction with other donors around the world, and we will certainly try to move them on to share our policy.

Christine Jardine: It is estimated that more than 50,000 children have been orphaned in Yemen since 2015, but the orphanages are struggling with a chronic lack of funds and are in constant danger of being closed. What discussions is the Minister having with her Saudi counterparts and others to ensure that the orphanages are getting the support they need?

Penny Mordaunt: This is a complex area, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising it. In addition to the efforts we are making with the Saudis and the Emiratis to try to get supplies into Yemen, we are also aware of in-country issues with moving supplies around, including basic vaccines and so forth. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East is in frequent contact with all parties, as am I.

Bob Blackman: The Indian diaspora in this country is incredibly generous in donating money to fund orphanages and schools for disabled children in India. What assistance can the Department give to match fund that generosity?

Penny Mordaunt: Our aid programmes in India are limited to investments on which we make a return and to technical support. We do not do traditional aid programmes in India, and we certainly do not fund the types of institutions to which my hon. Friend refers.  If he thinks we should be doing something that we are not, he can write to me and I will take a look at it, but that is our policy.

Access to Education

Jim Shannon: What steps she is taking to expand access to education in developing countries.

Harriett Baldwin: We supported 7.1 million children between 2015 and 2017 through bilateral and multilateral education programmes. UK leadership has secured ambitious commitments to ensure that children have access to 12 years of quality education.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her response. DFID is working with the Pakistan Minorities Teachers’ Association to provide education to religious minorities in schools. Does the Minister agree that DFID should continue and expand its work with the PMTA to ensure that hate material is removed from textbooks and that it does not inadvertently fund discriminatory materials?

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and I can reassure him that DFID does not fund the production of any textbooks in Pakistan that contain any bias against religious minorities. I can also confirm that in terms of our support for education in Pakistan, we support independent evaluations—

John Bercow: That is extremely helpful, but I am keen to get others in.

Jeremy Lefroy: Given that most jobs in developing countries will be in self-employment or small businesses, what input does DFID have into the curriculum in developing countries to ensure that the necessary skills are taught?

Harriett Baldwin: The education strategy that we published earlier this year focuses on ensuring that people leave primary school with good literacy and maths skills and that we invest in high-quality teaching.

Jo Platt: Last month I had the pleasure of visiting a Voluntary Service Overseas project in Malawi that focuses on the promotion of youth engagement in the country. My time was spent with young people from all over the country who were passionate, political and eager to have their voices heard. Will the Minister commit to meet me to discuss that project and how we can support youth voice structures in developing countries?

Harriett Baldwin: I am delighted to hear about the hon. Lady’s wonderful trip to Malawi and look forward to meeting her to discuss it in more detail. I can confirm that we are doing extensive bilateral work in Malawi and that many young people from the UK go out with the VSO’s International Citizen Service.

Dan Carden: Some 11.5 million young people globally have signed a petition to the United Nations backing a $10 billion plan to create an international finance facility for education that would guarantee every child the right to an education by 2030. If we are to meet the sustainable development goal on  education, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown says that we require an “extraordinary, indeed superhuman, effort.” Will the Government provide both financial guarantees to such a facility and that superhuman effort?

Harriett Baldwin: I pay tribute to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s and his work on the girls’ education agenda around the world. We are considering the feasibility of that international financing facility for education, and we are going through the technical detail, but we are not yet in a position to support the proposal.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I will take Questions 7 and 9, but there will be no time for supplementaries.

Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh

Ross Thomson: What steps she is taking to support Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What steps her Department is taking to protect Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh in preparation for the monsoon season.

Alistair Burt: The UK has helped to lead the international response to the crisis. We are working with the Government of Bangladesh and humanitarian partners to improve shelters, provide water and sanitation, vaccinate against deadly disease and pre-position emergency supplies.

Ross Thomson: Save the Children reports that just over 70% of school-age Rohingya children in Bangladesh are currently out of school. Will the Department help to lead a significant scale-up of education programming in the refugee camps?

Alistair Burt: Yes.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Save the Children has warned that not only are powerful storms affecting the Rohingya refugee camps, but such storms are likely to become more frequent. What are the Government doing to ensure that global action is taken to address flooding issues? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: I understand the sense of anticipation. I just remind the House that we are discussing the plight of Rohingya refugees, whom we owe some empathy and respect.

Alistair Burt: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Pacific was at Cox’s Bazar last weekend. He raised issues of global support with the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, who was also there. We are working with global partners to do all we can to meet the needs of those in such difficult circumstances.

Rosena Allin-Khan: The Red Cross has announced that conditions are not ready for Rohingya refugees to return to Myanmar. This will be a protracted  crisis, with up to 200,000 Rohingya being affected by the monsoon season. This was not a surprise. Where was the Government’s disaster relief plan?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady is right, and we are already working with other agencies on the fact that the refugees are likely to be there for much longer than people would originally have expected. It is still important that they are safe to return to Myanmar but, if that is not possible, we will indeed be working with others to make sure they are as safe as possible where they are.

Topical Questions

Bob Stewart: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Penny Mordaunt: [In British Sign Language]: On 24 July we will hold a global disability conference here in London, organised by the UK Government, by the Kenyan Government and by the International Disability Alliance. For too long, in the world’s poorest countries, disabled people have not been able to reach their full potential because of stigma or not enough practical support. I am proud to be focused on this area, which has been neglected for too long. The conference will support the global effort to advance disability inclusion for some countries’ most vulnerable people. [Applause.]

John Bercow: In thanking the Secretary of State, and the gratitude of the House is obvious, let me just say by way of reply that that is—[in British Sign Language]—good news.

Bob Stewart: As a boy, my ayah came from Somaliland, which was a British protectorate then. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explain what her Department is doing to help that great country, which has always been a friend of the UK?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. UK assistance to Somaliland includes support for critical economic infrastructure, humanitarian assistance, police and justice support, and engagement in counter-terrorism and security. We provided rapid response in the aftermath of the tropical storm, and we will also support Somaliland’s National Electoral Commission to plan and prepare to deliver elections next year.

Alison Thewliss: rose—

Hear, hear.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady will revel in her popularity.

Alison Thewliss: Reuters has reported that fighting in Hodeidah has forced around 2,000 high school students to take a dangerous six-hour journey across mountains to sit their exams in Sana’a, but more than 2 million children are reported to be out of school in Yemen, and the conflict is having a profound effect on their education. What are the Government doing to end the conflict?

Alistair Burt: We are giving every support to the work of the UN special envoy, Martin Griffiths, who, almost as we speak, is in Sana’a and talking to the coalition parties. Only through this UN negotiation might we get a resolution of the conflict.

Laurence Robertson: I know through personal experience the good work DFID does with the Foreign Office in promoting trade with developing countries. Will the Secretary of State continue to work with the Foreign Office to make sure we offer better trade deals to developing countries, particularly those in Africa, than they currently have with the European Union?

Penny Mordaunt: As I said, leaving the EU affords us the opportunity to develop our own trading deals with those nations. We work incredibly closely with the Foreign Office, including through our ministerial teams coming together once a week to discuss these matters.

Neil Gray: The recent aid transparency index showed DFID a commendable third but the FCO a poor 40th in the global rankings of aid agencies. Can the Secretary of State explain the discrepancy between the two and ensure that all UK aid spend meets the same standards of quality, poverty reduction and transparency?

Penny Mordaunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, earlier this year I convened the first cross-ministerial official development assistance group. Every Department that spends ODA money, and the National Security Council, which looks after the cross-government funds, meets at that group, through which we will provide training, support and the tools DFID uses to get other Departments to the standard we want them to reach.

Luke Hall: Building on the Government’s efforts to tackle modern slavery in the UK, will the Secretary of State update the House on what steps she is taking to tackle modern slavery overseas?

Alistair Burt: Tackling modern slavery is a priority for the Department. Last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £40 million of new funding that aims to reach at least 500,000 people at risk of slavery. We will continue to work on this as a priority.

Alistair Carmichael: Ministers will be aware that as we speak the bulldozers are moving into the Palestinian settlement of Khan al-Ahmar. That will lead to the forced displacement of the residents there, in a clear breach of international law. Will the Minister assure me that we are on the ground now, gathering evidence of these breaches of law, so that those who are responsible will later be legally accountable?

Alistair Burt: I will be answering an urgent question on this matter shortly. We have taken a great deal of interest over many years in the affairs of those Bedouins at Khan al-Ahmar. I visited them just a few weeks ago and this remains a matter of great concern to the UK.

John Lamont: At the recent royal highland show, a number of excellent charities were exhibiting, including the Scottish-based landmine clearance charities the HALO Trust and World Vision. Will the Minister reassure the charities and me that this Government will continue to be committed to the 0.7% international aid budget and the support they give to these charities?

Penny Mordaunt: Absolutely; that is our policy. I will be visiting the HALO Trust tomorrow. It does a tremendous amount of work de-mining in many parts of the world and it is a very valued partners of ours.

Carol Monaghan: Healthcare workers tending wounded in Gaza are coming under fire from the Israeli defence force. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Israeli Government about this unacceptable and barbaric practice?

Alistair Burt: We have many discussions with the Government and state of Israel about the issues recently in Gaza. Although it is right for Israel to protect itself, aid workers and medical workers should never be a target for attack.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Tommy Sheppard: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 4 July.

Theresa May: I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in offering our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Private Reece Miller from the 1st Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment, who died on 30 June while on operations in Estonia as a result of a non-battle injury. Private Miller served his country with great distinction and that service will not be forgotten.
This week marks 70 years since the NHS was founded. It is rightly one of the nation’s most loved institutions, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to and recognise the dedication and hard work of NHS staff across the country.
The country witnessed a very rare and welcome event last night: the England football team winning a penalty shoot-out. The explosion of relief and, most of all, joy could be felt up and down the country, not just in the Smoking Room of the House of Commons. I congratulate Gareth Southgate and his team on a great performance. Last week, I promised to fly the flag of St George above No. 10 for all of England’s remaining matches in the World cup, and I know the whole House will want to join me in wishing the England team the best of luck in Saturday’s quarter final. Let’s keep that flag flying.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Tommy Sheppard: The Scotland Act 2016 transferred responsibility for the Crown Estate in Scotland to the Scottish Government, but a large retail park in my constituency called Fort Kinnaird was exempted from the transfer on the grounds that it was tied up with a private joint venture. Last month, the Government sold the Crown Estate’s interests in Fort Kinnaird for the receipt of £167 million, but last week the Treasury confirmed to me that none of that money would go to the Scottish Government and that it would be retained here in London. Will the Prime Minister review that  decision in order that the proceeds from the sale of a major public asset in Scotland’s capital city are given to the people of Scotland?

Theresa May: My understanding is that although the hon. Gentleman says that the money has come to the Government, it has actually gone to the Crown Estate, but I am happy to look into that and clarify that point for him in writing.

Rachel Maclean: After last night, I am sure that there is one question I do not need to ask the Prime Minister, which is whether she believes that football is coming home. I will ask her, though, whether she agrees that another great victory for our United Kingdom is the BAE contract. What does she think that means for jobs up and down the country in the manufacturing supply chain after we leave the EU?

Theresa May: I sincerely hope that Members across the whole House will congratulate England on their success and welcome it.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the excellent news that Australia has selected the global combat ship and BAE as the preferred tenderer for its future frigate programme. The scale and nature of the contract puts the UK at the forefront of maritime design and engineering, and demonstrates what can be achieved by UK industry and Government working hand in hand. It is the start of a new era in strategic defence industrial collaboration between the UK and Australia, which will be reinforced by the forthcoming defence industrial dialogue. As we leave the UK—as we leave the EU—[Interruption.] As we leave the European Union, the UK has an opportunity to build on our closer relationships with allies such as Australia, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Jeremy Corbyn: I share the Prime Minister’s tribute to Private Reece Miller, who died while serving in the 1st Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment. Our thoughts are with this family and friends and, of course, with the entire regiment.
I spent the weekend congratulating the NHS on its 70th birthday in Nye Bevan’s birthplace. The message from the crowd there was: “The NHS is great; let’s fund it properly.” [Interruption.]
While we are speaking of emergency services, we should send from the House a message of our thanks and support to all those firefighters tackling the huge fires on Saddleworth moor and Winter Hill.
Of course, I congratulate the England team on a fantastic performance last night and wish them well on Saturday in the match against Sweden.
With fares rising above inflation, passenger numbers falling and services being cut, does the Prime Minister accept her failure on yet another public service: the buses?

Theresa May: First, I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman and, I am sure, all Members of this House that our thanks should go to the firefighters and troops who have been struggling to deal with the terrible fires that we have seen on the moorlands in the north of Britain. On his point about buses, I merely  point out to him that we should look at the responsibility that local authorities up and down the country have for the buses.
May I also comment on the right hon. Gentleman’s remark about putting sufficient funding into the national health service? At the last election, the Labour party said that giving the NHS an extra 2.2% a year would make it
“the envy of the world.”
Well, we are not giving it an extra 2.2% or, indeed, an extra 2.5% or 3%. We are giving the NHS an extra 3.4% a year. Now the right hon. Gentleman tries to say that that is not enough. What should we believe—what he said before the election or what he says after the election?

Jeremy Corbyn: In case the Prime Minister has forgotten, my question was about buses. Since 2010, her Government have cut 46% from bus budgets in England and passenger numbers have fallen, and, among the elderly and disabled, they have fallen by 10%. Her Government belatedly committed to keeping the free bus pass, but a bus pass is not much use if there is not a bus. Does she think it is fair that bus fares have risen by 13% more than inflation since 2010?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman says that, in his first question, he asked about buses; he did indeed and I gave him an answer in reference to buses. What he cannot do is simply stand up and make assertions about what the Government are doing without expecting those to be challenged, which is exactly what I did on his funding for the national health service.
It was right that we made that commitment in relation to bus passes. What we are seeing across the country is that, as people’s working habits are changing, there is less usage of buses, but we are working with local authorities on this. Local authorities have many responsibilities in relation to buses, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman asks some of those local authorities what they are doing about the buses in their own areas.

Jeremy Corbyn: Under this Government, fares have risen three times faster than people’s pay. Bus users are often people on lower incomes whose wages are lower than they were 10 years ago in real terms and who have suffered a benefits-freeze. Under the stewardship of this Government, 500 bus routes have been cut every year, leaving many people more isolated and lonely and damaging our local communities. Does the Prime Minister believe that bus services are a public responsibility, or just something that we leave to the market?

Theresa May: I have made the point on two occasions about the responsibilities that others have in relation to buses. The right hon. Gentleman might, for example, look at what the Mayor of London—who when I last looked was a Labour politician—is doing in relation to buses in London. The right hon. Gentleman talks also about the impact of fares on lower-income people. It is important that we consider the situation of people who are on low incomes. That is why it is this Government who introduced the national living wage and have increased the national living wage. That is why it is this Government who have taken 4 million people out of paying income tax altogether. That is helping people on low incomes in this country.

Jeremy Corbyn: When Sadiq Khan ran for Mayor of London, he promised to freeze bus fares, and what has he done? He has frozen bus fares. [Interruption.] If the Prime Minister is concerned about the travelcard fares, she should speak to the Secretary of State for Transport: he is the one who sets that fare. Bus routes are being wiped out: 26 million fewer journeys have been made across the north of England and the midlands under her Government. So much for a northern powerhouse and a midlands engine. Can we be clear: does the Prime Minister think that deregulation of the bus industry, putting profit before passengers, has been a success  or a failure?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman talks about what the Mayor of London has done, but what have we seen in the number of people using buses in London? It has gone down under the current Mayor. If he wants to talk about what Mayors are doing, I am very happy to talk about what Andy Street, the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, has done; he has extended free bus fares to apprentices and students.

Jeremy Corbyn: It will be a Labour Government who save the bus industry and who give free fares to under 26-year-olds. The truth is that since deregulation fares have risen faster than inflation, ridership has fallen and these private bus monopolies have made a profit of £3.3 billion since 2010. That is what the Tories give us in public transport. The Government have given Metro Mayors the powers to franchise and regulate to secure better services. Why will they not extend that power to all local authorities?

Theresa May: Of course, the local authorities have some responsibilities and capabilities in relation to subsidising bus routes and fares; and, yes, we have given those powers to the Metro Mayors. The right hon. Gentleman earlier referenced what was happening in the northern powerhouse and the midlands engine. I will tell him what is happening: more investment in our public transport; more investment in our roads; and more investment in the infrastructure that brings jobs to people in the north and across the midlands.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is a shame that this Government are so shy of giving powers to local authorities, and are instead more interested in cutting their resources. Bus services are in crisis under this Government. Fares are increasing, routes are being cut and passenger numbers are falling. The situation is isolating elderly and disabled people, damaging communities and high streets, and leading to more congestion in our towns and cities, with people spending more time travelling to work or school. It is bad for our climate change commitments and for our air quality. Will the Prime Minister at last recognise the crucial importance of often the only mode of transport available for many people by ending the cuts to bus budgets and giving councils the power to ensure that everyone gets a regulated bus service, wherever they live?

Theresa May: I will take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman in devolution to local authorities. Which party has established the Metro Mayors and given them those powers? It is the Conservative party in government. Which party is doing growth deals around the country, giving local authorities new responsibilities? It is this Conservative Government. And what did we  see in the north-east? When we were talking to Labour councils in the north-east about a devolution deal, Labour council leaders there rejected that devolution. That is what the Labour party is doing. The right hon. Gentleman wants to know what this Government are delivering for the people of the north, the south, the midlands—for every part of this country. We are delivering record high employment, rising wages, falling borrowing, stronger environmental protection and a Britain fit for the future.

Scott Mann: You wait for a bus question and seven come along at once; there is another one coming now. This morning, my office manager walked from Delabole to Sir James Smith’s School. This is a route that Cornwall Council has deemed to be safe and within Government guidance, and parents have been refused free public transport for their kids. At three miles there and three miles back, the road has no pavements and no street lighting. In winter months the children will be asked to walk to and from school in the dark on a single track road alongside cars, tractors and lorries. There are similar stories all around Cornwall. Will the Prime Minister look at this guidance, and talk to Cornwall Council about what can be done?

Theresa May: We are committed to recognising the responsibilities that local authorities have in these matters, and we have committed to providing them with the funding that they need. We have increased the funding to Cornwall for 2019-20 by more than £12 million since 2015-16. It is a matter for the local authority to decide how to spend its funding and to make decisions on local matters, but I agree with my hon. Friend and would encourage local authorities to ensure that, in doing that, they are absolutely taking into account the wishes and concerns of the communities that they serve, including the one to which my hon. Friend referred.

Ian Blackford: As a football fan, may I congratulate England on their very fine victory in the World cup—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. It is very unfair on the leader of the Scottish National party—[Interruption.] Order. I inform the House, almost certainly for the first time, that we are today visited by an American state senator and his wife, whom I had the great privilege of meeting earlier this morning. I am sure we will wish to impress the two of them with the quality of our behaviour.

Ian Blackford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Perhaps on American Independence Day we should welcome the senator.
May I congratulate England on their very fine victory in the World cup and wish them all the best in their coming games?
This morning we have learned that Vote Leave is expected to be found guilty of breaking electoral law. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need absolute transparency in elections and that people must be held accountable?

Theresa May: First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and best wishes to the England team?
On the issue that the right hon. Gentleman refers to, I am not going to comment, as I am sure that hon. Members will understand, on what appears to be a leaked report that the Government have not seen. The Electoral Commission has said in relation to the Vote Leave matter that it will consider representations it has received and will
“publish a thorough and detailed closing report in order to provide a full and balanced account”.
The Government will of course consider that report when we receive it, and we will also consider any recommendations arising from it when it is released.

Ian Blackford: Of course, it is the principle that is important. Our democracy cannot and must not be bought. The Conservatives are systematically shielding their donations from public scrutiny. Jackson Carlaw—the MSP for Eastwood—the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) have all accepted donations from the Scottish Unionist Association Trust. The trust has donated £319,000 to the Scottish Conservatives, yet there is no information available about the people who currently manage the trust and there are no public accounts to indicate who its donors are or what assets it holds. The BBC has revealed that the former vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland, Richard Cook, was behind the DUP’s £435,000 donation during the EU referendum, and has
“a trail of involvement in illegal activity and foreign money”.
I am now giving the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I very much hope and trust that the right hon. Gentleman has advised those Members in advance, as he has referred to them. I know that he is approaching his peroration and will be sensitive to the fact that the House wants that.

Ian Blackford: I have indeed, Mr Speaker.
I am now giving the Prime Minister the chance to tell us what checks the Scottish Tory party had in place before accepting such large donations. Will she investigate the links between the Conservative party and the trust and promise to publish a list of all donations and donors?

Theresa May: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that all donations to the Scottish Conservative party are accepted and declared in accordance with the law, and the Scottish Conservative party works with the Electoral Commission to make sure that that is all done properly.

Gillian Keegan: Domestic abuse is an act of brutality often hidden in plain sight, and it affects one in four women and one in six men across this country. Last week saw the launch of the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, and 170 companies and some MPs have signed up to train their employees to spot the tell-tale signs and to help provide much-needed support. Will the Prime Minister support this initiative and also encourage more MPs and businesses across the country to sign up?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised a very important issue. Of course, as she said, this is something of which we see many women being victims, but men can be victims of domestic abuse too. I certainly welcome   the efforts of the Employers’ Initiative in raising awareness of this issue and in doing that vital work of providing advice and support to employers and employees on the steps they can take to address it. I understand that the Minister for Women, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is also responsible for crime, safeguarding and vulnerability, recently attended the launch of a toolkit for employers on tackling domestic abuse that was developed in partnership with the Employers’ Initiative, Public Health England and Business in the Community. I would absolutely encourage Members from all sides of this House, as employers, to sign up to the initiative and also to promote it in their constituencies so that we can take every step we can to root out domestic violence and domestic abuse.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: President Trump has recently locked up children in cages, instigated a ban on Muslims, stalled action on climate change and started trade wars, and he is now threatening women’s reproductive rights. Should the Prime Minister not be challenging his divisive and damaging policies, instead of inviting him for tea and cakes at No. 10?

Theresa May: I have responded to the points that the hon. Lady has raised. I have been very clear, and I have said in the House, for example, that the action taken against child migrants was not unacceptable and is not something we would do here in the UK. We did not consider that acceptable. She wants me to challenge the President of the United States. What better way to challenge the President of the United States than to sit down and talk to him?

Simon Clarke: I look forward to welcoming Heather Steven, the practice manager at Loftus’s GP surgery, to my right hon. Friend’s Downing Street reception for the NHS later. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that as part of this Government’s record investment in the NHS, she will ensure that primary care services receive all the support they need?

Theresa May: The intention behind this increase in the NHS budget is that we will see it directed to frontline and primary services. We need a long-term plan. The NHS is developing that long-term plan itself. The budget will have increased by 2023-24, with an extra £20 billion a year in real terms compared with today, and it is through the 10-year plan, which will be led by doctors, that we will make sure we are delivering world-class care for everyone and that every penny is well spent.

Marsha de Cordova: This morning the head of the National Audit Office took the unprecedented step of writing an open letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, setting out how the right hon. Lady has misled Parliament in three respective statements she has made on universal credit. The ministerial code is very clear that:
“It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.
Has she?

Theresa May: As the hon. Lady said, it is clear that Ministers should correct the record in Parliament, and the welfare Secretary will be correcting the record at the Dispatch Box after PMQs, as I believe she has advised you, Mr Speaker.

Robert Goodwill: On Saturday in Llandudno, the Prime Minister received a warm welcome as the nation paid tribute to our brilliant armed forces. It is great news that valiant Salisbury will host the event next year, and we are absolutely delighted that Britain’s premier resort, Scarborough, will be the location of the national Armed Forces Day event in 2020. Is the Prime Minister looking forward to coming to Scarborough as much as we are looking forward to welcoming her on 27 June 2020? Does she suspect, like me, that the Leader of the Opposition will already have put the date in his diary, as no doubt he will be planning to wash his hair again that day?

Theresa May: It was a great privilege to attend Armed Forces Day in Llandudno on Saturday; it was a fantastic celebration. Other events took place up and down the country, and it was a great opportunity to recognise the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces and the wonderful job that they do day in, day out for us, putting themselves on the line and making sacrifices for our safety. I am delighted that Salisbury and Scarborough will host the day in 2019 and 2020 respectively. Armed Forces Day will give people yet another reason to visit the great resort of Scarborough in 2020, and I certainly look forward to continuing to celebrate Armed Forces Day in the future and to joining my right hon. Friend in celebrating it in Scarborough.

Alex Norris: The nursery at Basford Hall is well used and well rated and helps parents access further education. Despite that, Nottingham College is planning to close it. Our campaign to stop that is backed by 1,800 local residents and our local councillors. Does the Prime Minister agree with them that we must remove all barriers to accessing further education, and will she support our call for the college to revisit that decision?

Theresa May: I have not seen the details of the particular issue at the college that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. On the general point, I think it is important that we make sure that education—further education, higher education—is available to people and is available to people whatever their background, whatever their circumstances and, as I say, whatever their particular circumstances. I want to see a country where how far people go in life is about them, their talents and their willingness to work hard, not where they have come from and not what their circumstances are.

Andrew Lewer: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming a major investment in the exciting new campus for the University of Northampton in my constituency, and does she share my view that this could play a key role in the revitalisation of the town centre?

Theresa May: I am very happy to share the view that my hon. Friend has expressed in welcoming the investment that is taking place in the new campus  for the University of Northampton. It is good to see that investment being put in by the university—into its staff, technology, facilities and infrastructure—but putting students firmly at the heart of the institution. As he says, however, it is also a great opportunity for the local community. As my hon. Friend will know, the campus is part of the Northampton Waterside enterprise zone, which, I understand, has created over 2,800 jobs and attracted £320 million of private sector investment, and I am sure this new campus will also be a catalyst for investment, and new jobs as well.

Julie Cooper: Maintained nursery schools employ qualified teachers, are inspected as schools and have all the costs associated with schools, but still they are not funded as schools. Does the Prime Minister recognise that all the grammar schools in the world cannot raise standards if children are neglected in those early years? If these nursery schools are not funded as schools, they will close. Will the Prime Minister commit today to making sure that that does not happen, and make a financial commitment to support them in the future?

Theresa May: I fully recognise the importance of the early years education that is provided by nursery schools—maintained nursery schools—and, indeed, by others. That was why many years ago, when I was the chairman of education in the London Borough of Merton, I was happy to complete a programme that ensured we put in early years education for those parents who wanted it, at a time when the Labour Government and others—the Labour Government previously and the Government at the time—were not putting it in. We recognise the importance of nursery education.

Oliver Heald: Despite great Government investment in the railway line from Cambridge into King’s Cross St Pancras and then across London on Thameslink, over the past seven weeks my constituents have endured an appalling service. We are told that that will now improve on 15 July, but if it does not, does the Prime Minister agree with me that Govia Thameslink should be stripped of the service and a new operator—a new operator of last resort—brought in to sort out this mess?

Theresa May: As I have said previously, the disruption that passengers have been facing is simply unacceptable, and it is unacceptable that it is continuing to happen today. As my right hon. and learned Friend says, on 15 July there will be a full interim timetable introduced, with the aim of improving reliability and performance for passengers, and there is work being done—a review of Govia Thameslink, which is going to report in the next few weeks. Clearly, however, we need to ensure that the priority is to make sure that that interim timetable is implemented and passengers do get the services that they need. We also need to ensure that if the services are not provided in the way that is right and are not what the passengers need, the Department for Transport will look at this, and that nothing is off the table.

Chi Onwurah: Mr Speaker, I invite you and the Prime Minister to visit Newcastle this summer for the Great Exhibition  of the North, celebrating engineering and creativity from Stephenson’s Rocket to the Wilson twins’ Suspended Island installation. Given that the Prime Minister refuses to invest in tidal power or carbon capture and to rule out a no-deal Brexit, which will devastate engineering supply chains, what hope is there that our engineering future will be as glorious as our engineering past?

Theresa May: There is every hope, because of the investment and the commitment that the Government are giving through our modern industrial strategy. The hon. Lady asks if I and members of the Government will visit the Great Exhibition of the North, and I think she may be surprised to find how many of us do indeed visit it over the summer.

John Bercow: I am sure people will. I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) in February, and I am still fizzing with excitement about the matter five months later.

Mary Robinson: Popular Bramhall hairdressers Ed and Mike are visiting Parliament today. Like many other small businesses, it is because of their skills, expertise and hard work that they are successful. Will the Prime Minister join me in praising small businesses up and down the country for the work that they do, and does she agree that is by building a strong economy that we provide the best conditions for them to survive and thrive?

Theresa May: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in recognising the vital role that small businesses play in our economy and, indeed, in our local communities. They provide valuable services, products and jobs for local people, and we should never fail to recognise the great work that they do. Government’s role is to ensure that there is a strong economy in which those businesses can thrive, and that is exactly what the Conservative Government are doing.

Kate Hoey: The Prime Minister will know that later this month Zimbabwe  will have its first election since Mugabe was ousted  by a military coup. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and I have recently returned from Zimbabwe, and we heard from Zimbabweans concerns that that will not be a genuinely free and fair election. The constitution is not being adhered to, and the main Opposition do not have a chance to reach the state media. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that our Government will not rush to agree that this is a free and fair election until we have seen that it really means change, not just for the election?

Theresa May: I commend the excellent work that the hon. Lady continues to do as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Zimbabwe. We obviously welcome the announcement of the date of the election on 30 July, but we urge all parties involved to pursue free, fair and peaceful elections, because that is absolutely what the Zimbabwean people deserve. We will certainly watch very carefully to see how those elections are conducted, and consider the conduct of those elections as appropriate. We have repeatedly said that if the Zimbabwean Government can demonstrate commitment  to political and economic reform the UK stands ready to do all that it can to support recovery, but that commitment is essential.

Owen Paterson: President Macron has ordered that every one of his Cabinet Ministers should be subject to a performance review. When the Prime Minister meets her Cabinet on Friday, will she judge every one of their contributions and the final deal that they decide against the very clear criteria laid down in the Conservative manifesto and the Labour manifesto, which got 85% of the votes, that we will categorically leave the single market, the customs union and the remit of the European Court of Justice?

Theresa May: I am pleased to tell my right hon. Friend that we have a strong team in Cabinet who will take this decision on Friday. I assure him that the Brexit that the Government will deliver and are working to deliver is a Brexit that ensures that we are out of the customs union, we are out of the single market, we are out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, we are out of the common agricultural policy, we are out of the common fisheries policy, we bring an end to free movement, we take control of our borders, and we have an independent trade policy, but we are also able to have a good trade arrangement with the European Union, protecting jobs and prosperity for the future.

Angus MacNeil: Sweetly following on from the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), with the Prime Minister’s Chequers failure Friday on the way, and max-fac soon giving way to “tot cap” or total capitulation, the UK’s Government handling of Brexit has been dither, delay and duck, but can I give the Prime Minister an opportunity for a straight answer? Shellfish producers in my constituency are worried about getting their produce to French and Spanish markets, so together with those countries and independent Ireland, how open does the Prime Minister want and envisage borders and trade routes after Brexit?

Theresa May: I have made it very clear that we are committed to no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and to as frictionless a border with the European Union in future as possible. Can I also say that I think fishermen up and down the country welcome the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has introduced on fisheries policy for the future? It is this Government who are taking the UK out of the common fisheries policy. The worst policy for fishermen in Scotland would be the Scottish National party’s policy of staying in the CFP.

Robert Halfon: In Harlow in 2016—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I know what this question is about and it must be heard with courtesy and respect.

Robert Halfon: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
In Harlow in 2016, a beautiful little girl, Summer Grant, tragically lost her life when a bouncy castle she was playing in blew away. This weekend there was  another horrific fatality from an inflatable in Great Yarmouth. The grandmother of Summer Grant has contacted me to ask for more safeguarding and training for these temporary structures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has also urged for lessons to be learned. I have been contacted by other parents around the country whose children have been injured in similar circumstances. A reputable operator from Harlow has told me that bouncy castles can be bought for just a few hundred pounds on eBay and that many inflatables are not properly regulated. Will my right hon. Friend urgently review the regulations on bouncy castles and inflatables, and will she implement a temporary ban on bouncy castles and inflatables in public areas until we know they can be safe?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend raises a very, very serious issue. I offer my deepest condolences, and I am sure those of the whole House, to the family of Summer Grant and the family of Ava-May Littleboy, who tragically was the victim of the bouncy castle incident that took place at the weekend. I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns about these tragic incidents. As regards the incident that took place at the weekend, I understand that Norfolk police, aided by and working with the Health and Safety Executive, has started an investigation into the incident. It is too early to know the cause of the incident, but if any findings emerge from the investigation, the necessary recommendations to improve safety will be shared across the relevant sectors as soon as possible.

Imran Hussain: Under this Government we have seen a climate of division towards refugees and migrants, with Windrush just the tip of the iceberg. Now we see the Government extending the hostile environment to those facing oppression and seeking protection, with the revelation that the Home Office has failed to let new asylum contracts in Yorkshire and Humber, creating a real risk that those fleeing persecution will be left without a roof over their heads. Is this the vision for Britain that the Prime Minister sees, or will she give a guarantee here today that no one fleeing persecution will find themselves homeless?

Theresa May: This country has a proud and long tradition of welcoming those who are fleeing from persecution and providing them with appropriate support. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, the Home Secretary is on the Front Bench and will have heard his specific issue about Home Office contracts in his area. We have that long and proud tradition, and it continues today. We welcome, and deal sensitively and carefully with, those who are fleeing persecution, and we will continue to do so.

Rebecca Pow: Just as an aside, Mr Speaker, the Bercow report on speech, language and communication was very well referenced in Westminster Hall this morning.
My question is about ice cream. In this hot weather, there has been a great run on Granny Gothards ice cream in Taunton Deane, for which all the milk is provided by local farmers. The ice cream is not just popular locally, however, because Granny Gothards has just secured contracts to sell its 135 varieties of ice  cream to China, and it is expanding to the middle east, including Saudi Arabia. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Granny Gothards on its sweet export success and on winning two awards at the Taunton Deane business awards? Does not that demonstrate the opportunities in global markets?

Theresa May: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Granny Gothards on not only its two business awards but, crucially, the export contracts it is working on. It is absolutely right that my hon. Friend highlights the opportunities that businesses will have as we leave the European Union. It will be an opportunity to boost productivity, deliver better infra- structure and maximise the potential of our country and businesses such as Granny Gothards, which is obviously such a success in her constituency.

John Bercow: In the week of a special birthday for him, and in the name of encouraging a young Member as he seeks to build his career, I call Mr Stephen Pound.

Steve Pound: May I, in respect of the Prime Minister’s opening statement, declare an interest, as I, too, was born in the first week of July 1948? While I recognise that the national health service is held in rather higher esteem by the nation than I am —[Hon. Members: “No!”]—we both need a bit of care and attention. May I tell the Prime Minister that what the NHS needs is not warm words but cold cash? I would willingly—happily; joyfully—pay more in income tax to save the national health service. Would she?

Theresa May: May I first wish the hon. Gentleman a very happy 70th birthday this week? He is held in very high esteem across this House and he should not underestimate that—[Interruption.] My saying that might not have done very well for him with his Front Benchers, but there we are. May I also take this opportunity, as I have not had one previously, to wish a very happy birthday to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), whose birthday was on Monday?
On the issue that the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) raised in his question, we are providing the national health service with that money to ensure that, by 2023-24, it will have £20 billion extra in real terms. We are ensuring, alongside that, that a 10-year plan is produced that delivers for patients.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: Following the celebrations of Armed Forces Day, will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting an inspirational charity, the On Course Foundation, which is helping injured military personnel who have lost limbs, here and in the USA, to rebuild their lives by giving them the skills, knowledge and confidence to find long-term employment in the golf industry? Will she agree to meet me and some of these amazing men and women to see how this charity, which was founded by John Simpson, could be extended to some of our other services, such as the police and fire services?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for her warm words about the On Course Foundation, which is doing excellent work, as she says. It is really important that we ensure that those of our armed forces  who are injured and who are veterans are given the support that they need. She has highlighted a particular area in which that is happening. Armed Forces Day on Saturday gave me the opportunity to announce that, next year, we are going to have the first national games for wounded, injured and sick veterans and personnel of our armed forces. That has been inspired by the Invictus games, but these games will focus on those in our British armed forces. As she mentioned the police and fire services, I will ensure that the relevant Home Office Minister will meet her.

Seema Malhotra: This morning, I spoke to Afghan Sikh community leaders in my constituency following the horrific terrorist attack in the Afghan city of Jalalabad on Sunday, which was a deliberate attack with devastating consequences. The 19 killed included the trustees of the gurdwara and the only Sikh candidate in the forthcoming elections, Mr Avtar Singh Khalsa. The gurdwara had been a safe haven for many persecuted families and they were on their way to visit the President. At the moment, the Afghan Sikhs in west London are meeting in prayer and remembrance for those killed, many of whom they knew. Will the Prime Minister update the House on what she is doing to ensure the safety of minorities in Afghanistan, and will she meet the Afghan diaspora to discuss their concerns?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady raises a very serious issue. The terrorist attack that she refers to was indeed appalling. As she said, too many victims lost their lives as a result of that attack that took place in Afghanistan. It is important that we ensure that we are providing support, as we do through our contribution in Afghanistan. That is a contribution to security in the Kabul area specifically from our forces, but it is also about working with others to ensure that the Afghan security forces are able to provide security and safety for all communities living in Afghanistan. Tremendous achievements have been made in Afghanistan today, compared with the situation before these efforts, but sadly, as the hon. Lady highlights, too many terrorist attacks are still taking place in Afghanistan. We will continue to work with our allies and the Afghan Government to prevent these in future, and to ensure that people can go about their daily lives in safety and security and with confidence.

Edward Leigh: In agreeing with the Prime Minister, as I always do, that Brexit means Brexit, and that that generally means taking back control, may I ask her to confirm not only that after we leave the EU we will be leaving the single market and customs union, but that it is her personal position, and the settled negotiating position of Her Majesty’s Government, that we will have full and unfettered control of migration into this country, full and unfettered control in our ability to make new trade deals with the rest of the world and, above all, full and unfettered control of how we regulate our own business?

Theresa May: I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that after we leave the EU, we will indeed be operating our own independent trade policy. Parliament will be determining our laws and we will bring an end to free movement.

Chuka Umunna: A 19-year-old constituent was stabbed in December 2016. He nearly died from his injuries and his mother subsequently came to see me to get help to move out of the borough because she feared it would happen again. Despite our efforts, they were not moved. Late last Wednesday, as his mother feared, he was again stabbed—this time seven times—close to their home. Prime Minister, it is an outrage that the system is not protecting teenagers in this situation. What does it say about our society? Will she commit to introducing a compulsory scheme—not just pan-London but nationally—to facilitate such necessary moves between social housing providers and quite simply save lives?

Theresa May: On the attacks on the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, we are taking the use of offensive weapons—we have introduced the Offensive Weapons Bill—and serious violence very seriously. I understand that he sits on the serious violence taskforce that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has established to take account of views across the House on an issue that is a matter for all of us, and I am grateful to him for sitting on that taskforce.
The hon. Gentleman refers to a matter that lies in the hands of local authorities and social housing providers. On operations across London, he could of course speak to the Mayor of London about his responsibilities and the measures that he could introduce.

Points of Order

Caroline Flint: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Order. We will come to the right hon. Lady later—I will not forget her—but first I call the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a point of order.

Esther McVey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. While speaking in Parliament in answer to questions on the National Audit Office report on universal credit, I mistakenly said that the NAO had asked for the roll-out of universal credit to continue at a faster rate and to be speeded up. In fact, the NAO did not say that, and I want to apologise—

Resign!

John Bercow: Order. This is rather unseemly. I know that passions run high, but the Secretary of State contacted me to say that she intended to say what she is about to say, and the House should hear her say it.

Esther McVey: I want to apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and the House for inadvertently misleading you. I meant to say that the NAO had said that there was no practical alternative to continuing with universal credit. We adopt a “test and learn” approach to the roll-out of universal credit, which the NAO says mainly follows good practice, and therefore the point I was trying to make was that the calls from the Labour party to pause it seemed to fly in the face of those conclusions. As you know, Mr Speaker, I asked you yesterday if I could come to the House to correct the record. I believe it is right that, as a Minister, I should come and correct the record, and I therefore hope that you will accept my apology.
On the other issues raised in the letter sent today by the NAO, the NAO contacted my office at the end of last week and we are working on setting up a meeting. On the NAO report not taking into account the impact of the recent changes to UC, I still maintain that this is the case, and those changes include the housing benefit run-on, the 100% advances and the removal of waiting days. The impact of those changes is still being felt and therefore, by definition, could not have been fully taken into account by the NAO report. I hope that that clarifies the position.

John Bercow: I can confirm that the Secretary of State most certainly did contact me last night indicating that she would like to apologise on a point of order, and I certainly accept her apology.

Frank Field: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that the apology has been proffered and, as far as the Chair is concerned, accepted. I do not want there to be an extended—

Frank Field: rose—

John Bercow: Order. No, I do not want further points of order on this matter. It can no doubt be the subject of future debate, but I cannot see what point of order can arise. If the right hon. Gentleman has a point of order, as opposed to a point of argument or an expression of criticism, I am happy to hear it, but if it ceases to be a point of order, he will have to resume his seat. I call him purely because he is the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, but it had better be a point of order.

Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given notice to you, for tomorrow’s agenda, to ask for an urgent question to follow up that statement.

John Bercow: It is very generous of the right hon. Gentleman to tell me publicly that he has given me notice. I do not know whether he means that he has given me notice just now, in the form of that point of order, or that he has made an application to my office. People do not normally advertise urgent questions to the nation in advance. I will make a decision about it at the appropriate time.

Frank Field: You are an innovator, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Flattery will get the right hon. Gentleman everywhere. My innovations are there for everyone to see, whether they approve of them or not, but as far as urgent questions are concerned, as I think the House accepts, I make a judgment at the appropriate time, and now is not the appropriate time. He has, with some cheekiness and a degree of perspicacity, made his own point in his own way, and it is on the record.

Caroline Flint: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister suggested that when she was chair of education at Merton Council, she put money into early-years education while Labour was making cuts. She was chair of the education board from 1988 to 1990, when the council was Conservative-run and, as far as I recall, there was a Conservative Government. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how we can correct the record?

John Bercow: I think that the right hon. Lady has, to her own satisfaction, done so already. I hope she will understand if I say that I will not get into a debate about the respective local government records of senior officeholders in the House. Apart from anything else, I am not sure that I would want to stand by everything that I said or did in the 1980s.

Demolition of Khan al-Ahmar

Richard Burden: (Urgent Question): I had hoped to ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the imminent demolition of the village of Khan al-Ahmar and the threat of the forcible transfer of its residents, but in the light of developments this morning, I must instead ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the demolition that has commenced at Khan al-Ahmar and the village of Abu Nuwar and on the actual forcible transfer of the residents of those villages.

Alistair Burt: This morning, officials from our embassy in Tel Aviv and from our consulate general in Jerusalem visited Khan al-Ahmar to express our concern and demonstrate the international community’s support for that community. Once there, they did indeed observe a bulldozer, which began levelling the ground. While we have not yet witnessed any demolition of structures, it would appear that demolition is imminent. We deeply regret this turn of events. The United Nations has said that this would not only constitute forcible transfer, but pave the way for settlement building in E1. In accordance with our long-standing policy, we therefore condemn such a move, which would strike a major blow to prospects for a two-state solution with Jerusalem as a shared capital.
The United Kingdom has repeatedly raised its concerns with the Israeli authorities and others, for instance during my visit to Khan al-Ahmar on 30 May. On 12 June I issued a video message emphasising the United Kingdom’s concern at the village’s imminent demolition, and I reiterated that concern to the Israeli ambassador to the UK on 20 June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has also expressed his concern, most recently during his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu in London on 6 June. The Foreign Secretary’s statement on 1 June also made it clear that the UK was deeply concerned by the proposed demolition, which the UN has said could amount to “forcible transfer”, in violation of international humanitarian law. As recently as Monday, the British ambassador to Israel raised the issue with the Israeli national security adviser. Later today, the British ambassador will join a démarche alongside European partners to request as a matter of urgency that the Israeli authorities halt demolition plans.
Israel believes that, under its independent court system and rule of law, it has the right to take the action that it is beginning today, but it is not compelled to do so, and need not do so. A change of plan would be welcomed around the world, and would assist the prospects of a two-state solution and an end to this long-standing issue.

Richard Burden: As we speak, bulldozers are flattening the village of Khan al-Ahmar and destroying its school, which was built with international donor support, and which provides education for about 170 Bedouin children from five different communities. The village of Abu Nuwar is also being destroyed today.
People who live in these villages threaten no one. Their crime is to have homes on land that Israel wants, in order to expand the illegal settlements of Kfar Adumim and Ma’ale Adumim. To speak plainly, this is state-sponsored theft: a theft that will cut the west bank in  two, making a contiguous Palestinian state near-impossible and the prospects of a two-state solution still more remote. More importantly, as the Minister said, the forcible transfer of the villagers of Khan al-Ahmar and Abu Nuwar contravenes international humanitarian law. It is a war crime.
As the Minister also said, he—along with over 100 Members of this House and peers, and about  300 international public figures—has repeatedly urged the Government of Israel not to go ahead with the demolitions. Now that they have ignored those calls, the question is whether the commission of this war crime will have any consequence. If not, why will Mr Netanyahu believe other than that war crimes can continue with impunity? What practical action do the UK Government propose to take to hold those responsible for this war crime to account, and is it not time finally to outlaw commercial dealings by UK firms with illegal settlements in the west bank?

Alistair Burt: As the hon. Gentleman set out, this is an area of land that many of us know quite well from visits made over a lengthy period. This is a community that was moved before and moved to settle where they are, unable to get planning permission under Israeli planning law and therefore they built the settlement they did. The discussion that has taken place since the formation of the settlement has been about the rights and wrongs of that building and about the difficulties of Israeli law as to what would happen next. However, I think that the overwhelming sense of many of us is that this should not be happening and need not be happening. The damage it proposes to do, at a time when many of us are looking to a move on the middle east peace process in which this piece of land might play a significant part, rather pulls the rug away from those of us who want to see a two-state solution—which, as many say, is perhaps why this has been done.
As I have said, both the timing and the action itself are deeply concerning, but nothing is irrevocable yet. In terms of what we are doing, we are already in conversation with like-minded European partners about what should be done next.

Nicholas Soames: I believe in a secure Israel alongside a viable and independent Palestine. However, it is beyond comprehension that a remarkable country like Israel, cultured, sophisticated and democratic—whose people down the centuries have themselves known such terrible suffering—can countenance such wicked behaviour, which is contrary to all international laws and humanitarian conventions, as she continues to bulldoze Palestinian villages like Khan al-Ahmar, whose residents’ houses are, I understand, at this moment being flattened. What other country would dare to behave in this barbaric way? Will the Government condemn these actions in the strongest possible terms?

Alistair Burt: The short answer to the last part of my right hon. Friend’s question is yes. The wider issue that he raised—and he put this extremely well in the Westminster Hall debate last week—was the contrast between an Israel for which many of us feel very deeply, and which we believe has many admirable qualities, and some  of its actions which seem to go against that history and culture, and about which we have a sense of deep  concern and sometimes bemusement. I know that it will have its reasons to defend its actions, and it is for the Israeli Government to do that, but the rest of us are disappointed and very perplexed today.

Emily Thornberry: Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who chairs the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, on securing it.
Just a week ago, when the Minister spoke about Khan al-Ahmar—it is a village that both of us have visited, and I know that he has worked on this issue assiduously—he agreed that, if the village were demolished, if its 181 residents were forcibly removed, and if their homes and their school were razed to the ground to make way for new illegal Israeli settlements, that action would
“call into question the viability of a two-state solution. ”
It could, he said, be construed as
“a breach of international humanitarian law”.
However, he also said:
“It is still possible for any demolition not to go ahead. ”—[Official Report, 26 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 744.]
A week on, I am afraid that—as we all know—we are no longer dealing in woulds, coulds and possibilities. We are dealing with the reality: the reality that this forcible eviction and demolition, this breach of international law, this hammer blow to the two-state solution, is taking place as we sit here today.
We are all tired of asking what can be done to cajole or compel the Netanyahu Government to start listening to their international allies, to start complying with UN resolutions on settlements, or to start acting with some basic fairness and justice on the issue of building permits. That is all increasingly just a waste of breath. I therefore wish to ask the Minister two different questions today, which I believe are more worth while.
Does the Minister share my concerns that we are fast approaching a dangerous place where even some respected Palestinian figures are moving away from the idea of a two-state solution towards seeking democratic control over a single state, with all the implications that that would have for the potential Israeli minority? If he does share those concerns, will he also agree with me that before that shift in opinion can take hold, and before the actions of the Netanyahu Government render a two-state solution a geographical impossibility, this is the time for the United Kingdom to lead the major nations of the world in recognising the Palestinian state, and to do so immediately, while there is still a state left to recognise?

Alistair Burt: I thank the right hon. Lady for what she has said. I agree with many of her remarks. The danger that she identifies of a two-state solution slipping away has, of course, been potentially real for some time. Individual actions such as this are doubly difficult to understand and accept at a time when we have all been anticipating a development that would be workable and allow us to move forward.
No one quite knows what the boundaries of a future state might be, but we all have a sense of what the parameters would be. That is why the concerns about  the E1 area outside Jerusalem have been so important and have perhaps led to some restraint over the years. But if that is to go, what is left and what is next? So that is what we need to do. As I said a moment ago, we are currently in conversation with like-minded European partners about what the response should be and there are a number of options, but the best thing we should be thinking through is what option preserves the important chances there still are for a two-state solution, which has been so long sought for and is still in the mind of the UK the only viable possibility of providing both justice for the Palestinians in some measure and security for the state of Israel. If there is a different answer, I, in 30 years, have not heard it.

Stephen Crabb: Many of us on both sides of this House who call ourselves friends of Israel rightly hail that nation as a bastion of liberal values in a troubled region, so does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that we ask the Israeli Government to abide by the very highest standards that they set for themselves, and will he underline again the point he has just made: the real solution to all of this, yet again, is to keep pushing for the peace process to be resurrected and following that path forward?

Alistair Burt: My right hon. Friend has been, and is, a good friend of the state of Israel, as many of us have been over many years, and I can sense the pain behind his question. We do indeed rightly hold a democracy to high standards and will continue to do so.

Stephen Gethins: This is devastating news today at a human level for those who have been impacted, but also for the peace process. Does the Minister agree that sustainable and lasting peace is built on respect for one another and respect for the rule of law? Does he agree with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that the demolition violates international law? If so, will he set out what kind of action he is thinking about taking, rather than merely expressions of regret? Is it time for a global response? Finally, may I join others in this House, the Scottish Government and other states in calling on this Government to recognise Palestine as an independent state?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the way in which he put them. At such a fragile time, it is difficult to see what steps can be taken next, after what will be seen as a provocative gesture, that would make it still viable to keep working on the solution we want to see, but that still remains a possibility. There was much talk when Jerusalem was recognised by the United States as the capital of Israel that that was the end of everything. It was not and it remains entirely possible to proceed. Jerusalem should be a shared capital—that is what the United Kingdom believes—and despite the Americans’ position we do not believe that has been taken off the table. But every time there is a move that makes that solution less likely, it becomes more difficult to see what the alternative is. As I have said, there will be a range of options and we are considering with friends and others what might be done.

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend is precisely that: he is an honourable man and a reasonable man, and I have some sympathy for him that  each and every time he comes to the Dispatch Box to talk about this issue he provides that reasonableness, but he does provide a commentary at a time when we are looking for more leadership and I would just ask him this. At the moment the latest news is that the Americans are discussing the Kushner peace process with the Russians. Has my right hon. Friend or any of his officials or fellow Ministers in the FCO had any input or sight of the Kushner peace plan, or are the British not playing any part in this whatsoever?

Alistair Burt: The American envoys have been in regular contact both with officials and the Foreign Secretary and on occasions with myself. They have kept many of the proposals very close to their chest. We have said that it is very important that they should continue to engage with the Palestinian Authority and we would again seek that, although everyone can understand why those circumstances are difficult. We have urged that the US envoys might certainly talk more widely to partners when they get close to producing their response to this. I am sure, as I have said before, that the US being the only broker in this is unlikely to be accepted now. We are very keen to work with others when these proposals come forward to find an answer.

Hilary Benn: It is, sadly, all too clear that, as well as destroying people’s homes, as we have heard today, the Government of Israel are in the process of severely damaging their international reputation when it comes to respect for the rule of law. Given all the criticism that the right hon. Gentleman has made from the Dispatch Box and other countries have echoed, why does he think the Government of Israel feel they can get away with doing what they want?

Alistair Burt: I do not know whether it is appropriate to answer in the terms that the right hon. Gentleman has offered. He poses his own question, which I think will be out there for many others to consider. We remain clearly very attached to Israel as an ally in many respects in terms of defence and security particularly in what is a difficult region, but, as is sometimes the case even with the closest friends, there are areas where we are not only not certain of their course of action but believe it to be fundamentally wrong, and this is one of those. So we must manage that relationship. This provides another opportunity for us to talk further about what will happen in the future but, every time there is something like this, it makes it that bit more difficult to see that something we have all been working on for so long is going to result in the solution we are all seeking. But we will continue to press for that.

Desmond Swayne: Are we mad in continuing to express concern or even condemn and yet expect a different outcome? No, we are not mad because actually we do not expect a different outcome and, by our refusal to act, we make ourselves complicit, don’t we?

Alistair Burt: My right hon. Friend has experience of government and of relationships with those in the region and understands the background of which he speaks. It does make it all difficult, but I say to him that we have not all given up on the prospects of a two-state solution, which, as I have said, I do not see an alternative to,  and the UK’s determination to keep in contact with all sides in relation to this and press that case is perhaps even more imperative now than it was this morning.

Christine Jardine: Like the Minister, I visited the village a few weeks ago and saw for myself the school that the community had built there, which is currently, as we speak, being destroyed along with the community’s homes. Today, I am also, like the Minister, perplexed and dismayed that Israel appears not to comprehend or to be prepared to take note of the outrage and the damage done to its reputation by this forcible transfer of communities, which is regarded as a breach of international law. Can he assure us that, as well as the talks he mentioned with like-minded European partners, he will ensure that the Government make the case to the President of the United States when he is here this month that this cannot be allowed to continue and make clear the damage it is doing, because he does appear to have some influence?

Alistair Burt: The short answer to that must be yes, I cannot imagine a conversation between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States that would not cover such a significant world issue, in which of course the United States does indeed have an important part to play.

David Jones: Article 53 of the Geneva convention expressly prohibits the destruction of property in occupied territory other than for military purposes. Given that there can be no possible military purpose in destroying the residential community of Khan al-Ahmar, does my right hon. Friend agree with my assessment that, even as we speak, the state of Israel is committing a war crime?

Alistair Burt: I am not sure if the UK is in a position to make that judgment, but certainly, as has been made clear, the United Nations has already said that it could constitute forcible transfer and clearly now that things have actually begun that matter becomes a much sharper one for consideration.

Andrew Slaughter: I have visited Khan al-Ahmar twice and have met many of the families there. This is a personal violation for them, as well as a war crime, but it is also a strategic step. There are 46 Bedouin villages and their future may well hang on whether the Israeli authorities get away with the demolition of Khan al-Ahmar. This allows for the splitting of the west bank and for the annexation, which is now openly talked about, of the west bank by Israel to take place. If not now, when are the Government going to act? When are they going to act against illegal settlements and end trade? When are they going to recognise Palestine and when are they are going to recognise their historical obligations and take a lead internationally, rather than wringing their hands?

Alistair Burt: I say again that it is my view—and, I think, the view of the Government—that we want to keep the opportunity of the two-state solution open and viable. That requires remaining in contact with the Government of the state of Israel. All these issues—the concerns about the building of settlements and their strategic position—are a vital part of the land jigsaw that the envoys are presumably working through and  they must come forward as the basis for negotiations between the Palestinians and the state of Israel. It should be the United Kingdom’s job to do everything it can to keep those channels and opportunities open, and the actions that we will take in response to this will be in accordance with those principles.

Bob Blackman: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the village of Khan al-Ahmar is in area C of the west bank, that under the Oslo accords it is under the direct control of Israel and that the Israeli courts have ruled it to be an illegal settlement? Will he also confirm that the Government of Israel have offered alternative accommodation with running water and proper civilisation? [Interruption.]

Alistair Burt: Both those statements from my hon. Friend are true, as far as they go—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order.

Alistair Burt: It is just a question of what the background and context might be. The settlements in the area are deemed illegal, but between 2014 and the summer of 2016 just 1.3% of building permits requested by Palestinians in area C were granted, and between 2010 and 2015 only 8% of all building permits in Jerusalem were given in Palestinian neighbourhoods. Practically, this leaves Palestinians with little option but to build without permission, placing their homes at risk of demolition on the grounds that they do not have a permit. While recognising Israel’s judicial system and recognising the rights that it believes it has in relation to this, other circumstances have to come into consideration, which is why the United Kingdom takes the view that it does about this demolition.

Rupa Huq: For the two Bushes, Clinton and Obama, building on area E1, where Bedouins have grazed sheep and goats for years, was a red line, but now, under Trump, there are no red lines. Does the Minister not appreciate that his concern, disappointment and bemusement—as I think he even said—do not seem enough when bulldozers will literally be concreting over all hopes for a two-state solution by constructing a continuous west bank settlement?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady makes her own points very strongly. It is right that this has been considered a red line, for the reasons that she has set out. It is yet to be seen what the international reaction to this will be.

Crispin Blunt: Does my right hon. Friend see the link between this urgent question and the debate later today in Westminster Hall in the name of the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, about incitement in the Palestinian education system? These cruel and illegal actions form part of an unshakeable Palestinian perception of Israeli policy over five decades in the occupied territories that breeds the anger and despair that contribute to an environment of historic hatred that is going to become almost impossible to reverse.

Alistair Burt: My own observation, from my recent visit, is that the separation is growing, particularly between young people. Whereas there are older people in Palestinian areas and in Israel who can talk about living in each other’s villages and about times past, that now seems impossible for some younger people. This is built on the failure over many decades to reach a solution that would allow that sort of life to continue. I do not think there is any future unless the people of Israel and the Palestinian people find a way back—with all the security guarantees that need to be given—to the sort of life where their security is built on their neighbours and not on walls and division.

Stephen Kinnock: I have also had the honour and privilege of visiting Khan al-Ahmar, where I met many wonderful people who were just trying to live in peace and do the best for their families and their community. Surely the time has now come for the British Government formally to recognise the state of Palestine. Surely the time has also come for us to impose sanctions and cease all trade with the illegally occupied territories.

Alistair Burt: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. That is not the policy of the United Kingdom, for reasons that we have given before, but I have indicated that we are in consultation with European colleagues and considering what response there might be to these circumstances.

Mike Wood: Like my right hon. Friend, I consider myself a friend of Israel and a strong supporter of a two-state solution, but is it not the case that these demolitions cast serious doubt on Israel’s own commitment to those objectives?

Alistair Burt: Again, the short answer is a worrying yes. Israel has many friends around the world. I count myself as a friend of the middle east as well as a friend of individual separate states. In my experience, the determination to reach a just solution had slipped down the agenda of the world in recent years, but it has now gone back up the agenda, partly as a result of President Trump’s decision on Jerusalem and partly as a result of the feeling that, although we have said it many times before, maybe there is just one last chance before we get into a situation that none of us wishes to see. It is possible that the events of today, a little like the catalyst of Gaza recently, might be a further reminder that that chance is slipping away and that the door might be closing all too quickly.

Sylvia Hermon: The Minister, for whom I have enormous regard, has described how British officials were taken by surprise this morning when they went to visit the villages and found bulldozers on site—

Alistair Burt: indicated dissent.

Sylvia Hermon: They were not surprised?

Alistair Burt: They were not surprised, ma’am. They went there because they knew that things were happening. They were not taken by surprise.

Sylvia Hermon: I thank the Minister for that clarification. They were not taken by surprise, but they went there because they feared that demolitions were going to take place. I would like to be reassured that, when the reports came back that the bulldozers were indeed on site, the Foreign Office immediately contacted the White House and asked the Americans to use the influence that they seem to have in Israel to save those villages from demolition. Did that happen? Have we contacted the White House? Did the Foreign Secretary make that call? Did the Prime Minister make that call? Did anyone in the British Government make that call to the White House?

Alistair Burt: Forgive me—I do not know the answer to that question. I have been dealing with DFID questions in the House this morning and then I moved on to this. I do not know what official contact there has been between us and the United States, but the hon. Lady asks an extremely good question. I cannot imagine that in dealing with this issue we are not in direct contact with our friends in the United States, and I will certainly make sure that we are.

Ross Thomson: Strong concerns have been expressed this afternoon, and I join those calls for the demolitions to be halted. Israel has provided welfare for the rapidly growing Bedouin communities and proposed solutions to improve their quality of life. Does the Minister recognise that Israel is trying to work with those communities to resolve this undeniably sensitive situation?

Alistair Burt: I know from my previous experience that, again, the short answer is yes. Proposals have been put forward, including by Benny Begin some years ago, and a lot of work has been done with the Bedouin community from the Negev and in the area. However, there is a fundamental point at which people’s rights, feelings and desires have to be taken into account. In this particular instance, it is not deniable that Israel has indeed come forward with alternative accommodation, but the question is, as it would be for any of us: if someone offers you something, you have a choice as to whether to accept it, but if that choice is taken away, the circumstances are rather different. What we have sought to stress to Israel is that, although this particular case has been through its legal system and alternatives have been provided, this is not what that community, which has already been moved, wanted. Accordingly, many people believe that those rights and wishes should be somehow taken into account, in a state that values and prizes the need for rights and laws to protect the most vulnerable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) said. He is surprised that that has not been the case.

Mohammad Yasin: The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that the demolition of structures in the Khan al-Ahmar encampment would be a violation of international law and has called on the Israeli authorities to stop it. If the demolition goes ahead, which is likely given the previous record of the Israeli authorities, do the Government intend to take steps to hold the authorities to account for their actions?

Alistair Burt: I can only repeat what I said earlier, which is that we are in discussion with other partners about what the response might be, but I hope that I made clear the UK’s deep concern and our condemnation of an action that threatens the two-state solution.

Joanna Cherry: There is clearly a strong feeling today that we need more than just condemnation. Given that Israel’s settlements, the demolitions and the forcible transfer of people are illegal under international law, the British Government could tell UK businesses that they should not collude with illegality in their commercial dealings with the settlements any more than they should collude with illegality in the UK.

Alistair Burt: I hear the hon. and learned Lady’s views and understand where they come from, but that has not been our policy in the past. We have left the choice to people who know the background and the circumstances that relate to settlements and their produce. However, as I said earlier, the UK reserves all its actions while it considers what it might do.

Wes Streeting: I too am a friend of Israel, which is why I will not pretend that what is taking place today is happening out of some concern for the welfare of the Bedouin community in Khan al-Ahmar or is the result of some planning dispute. What is happening is a deliberate policy intention of the present Israeli Government, who have no regard or concern for a two-state solution and simply want to expand illegal settlements, which will ultimately undermine the security and legitimacy of the Israelis and grossly infringe the human rights of Palestinians. Having been to Khan al-Ahmar and knowing what lies ahead if the demolition happens without a serious international response, I have to say that if Israel is going to demolish Palestinian villages on the grounds that they are illegal settlements, is it not time for this country and our European partners to take targeted economic sanctions against illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank?

Alistair Burt: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said previously about potential action. Like one or two other Members, he speaks from a background of support and understanding for the state of Israel and therefore with even greater concern and upset at what is happening and the reasons behind it. He will have spoken for many both inside and outside, just as others have done.

Julie Elliott: We are now hearing of dozens of Palestinians being hospitalised as a result of the tragedy of the start of the demolition of Khan al-Ahmar this morning. That demolition is a war crime, so how will the British Government ensure that Israeli decision makers are held to account for what has happened today?

Alistair Burt: May I start by thanking the hon. Lady for trying to get hold of me today? I got the telephone message a little too late to respond, but I appreciate that she attempted to get in touch.
I said earlier that the British ambassador would be joining a démarche of Israel this afternoon in response to the actions that have been taken. I assure the hon. Lady, as I assured the House, that there is no shortage  of opportunity for either Ministers or our ambassador or consul general to make a case. It is not the lack of making a case that is the concern; it is the lack of listening to the case. Accordingly, we need to see, in consultation with others, what we can do. We have different views about the future security of the state of Israel, but I wish that we were all coming from the same place. We will continue to make our case as strongly as we can.

Paul Blomfield: Like so many Members, I was inspired by the community of Khan al-Ahmar when I visited last November, and I know that the Minister was, too. B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights, has said that the demolition is a war crime, but it also highlights our potential influence in stopping such crimes as a member of the UN Security Council with deep cultural, diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel worth more than £7 billion in annual bilateral trade. I know that the Minister cares about this issue and that the Government have issued strong words, but is it not time to go beyond words and to start using all possible leverage to stop illegal demolitions?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. Of course, if there was an agreement, the land rights would be sorted out as part of it, so we would not have such issues. The imperative remains to seek and reach an agreement between the Palestinians and the state of Israel that ends such risks. Today’s actions make it even more imperative that that happens even more urgently in order to protect the rights of Palestinians and, indeed, to see Israel granted the security it needs in an ultimate agreement relating to the conflict.

Paula Sherriff: I have just heard that 35 people have been injured so far today as a direct result of the demolition. I know the Minister to be a very decent man, so will he pledge specifically to investigate why JCB bulldozers were used in the demolition of homes, given that it is certainly a serious breach of international law, if not a war crime?

Alistair Burt: I in turn greatly respect the hon. Lady and will indeed ensure that that investigation is carried out.

Grahame Morris: Without wanting to impugn the Minister’s personal integrity—I hold him in the highest regard, although we do not agree on this—regret and condemnation are not enough. We have international obligations, not least those specified in the last line of the Balfour declaration, which states that
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the…rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
Palestinian settlements are being demolished in order to make way for illegal Israeli settlements, which is a breach of international law, so are we going to call the Israeli ambassador in? Are we going to tell him that we will no longer trade with those illegal settlements? I suggest that that is what we need to do.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman has a long held a passionate commitment to this cause and has a fair way of expressing it, and it is true that we do not always  agree. We will of course be in contact with the Israeli ambassador, but I cannot anticipate the actions of the British Government at this stage.

Chris Elmore: Like the Minister, I had the privilege of vesting Khan al-Ahmar just last September. Part of the site includes a school with 170 children that was part-funded by the EU, so will the Minister set out what representations he has made to the Israeli Government for reparations if the school is to be demolished? The EU and the British Government must be far stricter, because this situation involves children, and Israel is in breach of article 50 of the Geneva convention.

Alistair Burt: The UK has not directly funded any structures in recent years that have been demolished by the Israeli Government. We have consulted EU partners on the demolitions, and we are keeping the case for compensation under review. No decision has been made about whether we will claim compensation in future. We are focused on preventing demolitions from happening through our funding to a legal aid programme that helps residents to challenge decisions in the Israeli legal system. Our work with the Norwegian Refugee Council has been extremely effective over the years in providing a counter to some of the demolition applications.

Alan Brown: I too have visited the village of Khan al-Ahmar, and I am one of the 25 MPs who signed a letter saying that this forcible transfer is a war crime. Rather than condemning the action and reserving our options, we need to hear more from the Minister about what will be done to hold those responsible to account. Does he accept that the longer he ducks the issue of allowing trade with illegal settlements and not recognising the state of Palestine, the vicious circle will just continue until it is too late?

Alistair Burt: I understand, particularly the hon. Gentleman’s last point. I have indicated that the British ambassador is taking part in a démarche this afternoon in relation to the Israeli Government. We are in consultation with European partners and colleagues on what actions might be taken. I cannot say anything further than that.

Lilian Greenwood: Some 181 people live in Khan al-Ahmar, and more than half of them are children. The Minister has acknowledged that the actions of the Israeli Government are contrary to international law, but those actions are also simply cruel. As we have heard, people are being injured by this demolition process. It is a grievous situation. What plans do the Government have to contribute towards humanitarian assistance efforts for the people who are being forcibly displaced?

Alistair Burt: We are very active in all areas of the west bank in supporting humanitarian needs through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the like. Plainly, we did not wish to see this demolition and, in company with others, we must now consider what we can do to support those who have been displaced. This is obviously very immediate, and I will report back to the House as soon as we have a clear answer to the hon. Lady’s concerns.

Alex Cunningham: We are kidding ourselves if we think we can stop this illegal work with diplomacy. Diplomacy has always failed in the past, so something else needs to be done. The Minister has responded four times on the issue of banning the import of Israeli goods produced in illegal settlements, but he says such a ban has not been British policy in the past. Does that mean he is considering a change? If not, why not?

Alistair Burt: There are circumstances in which a Minister cannot win, no matter what he says. I am accurate in saying that that is the current policy, but I also indicated, without any suggestion of a change in policy, that the United Kingdom’s response to today’s activities has not yet been fully considered. We are talking through with other partners what that response might be. I do not want to set any hares running by saying any more in response to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Matthew Pennycook: The demolition of Khan al-Ahmar and the forcible transfer of its population represents a step change in the nature of the occupation. The Minister has recognised that it could well deal a fatal blow to a two-state solution. As he has said, representations making the case to his Israeli counterparts clearly have not worked. Does he accept that this is the moment for a fundamental reappraisal of the Government’s approach?

Alistair Burt: The short answer is probably no, because the fundamental determination of the Government’s approach is to do everything we can to keep the option of a two-state solution alive and to work with all parties, including the state of Israel, towards that end. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that, because of the long-standing international concern about this community and because of the recognition of the significance of where the community is, the actions taken today constitute, in his words, a “step change” in what is happening. I do not think it undermines our determination that that ultimate settlement is the only thing that will deal with all these matters. So long as a two-state solution remains a viable possibility, it should still form the United Kingdom’s policy. Of course, in relation to this particular action, as I indicated earlier, we have to consider what response there might sensibly be.

Dan Carden: I visited the community of Khan al-Ahmar in February 2018 and met the schoolchildren and the families there. What is happening today is truly heartbreaking. I believe the Minister, and I believe that he thinks his actions are the right way forward, but how far away must the peace process be from realisation and how bad does the atrocity have to be before he is genuinely willing to come to the Dispatch Box to tell us what actions and what sanctions his Department and this Government are at least debating?

Alistair Burt: That is a good question. At what stage do I—that is less relevant—and the British Government give up on the two-state solution? There are plenty of voices out there telling us to do so: “It is just not going to happen. It is fantasy. It has all gone.” I do not believe that, and I do not want it to be the case, for the reason I gave earlier—I do not see a viable alternative.
The hon. Gentleman poses a very real question: at what stage do we give up on a two-state solution? I do not want to give up on all those friends over the years, on those behind the Oslo accords and on those who worked so determinedly for a two-state solution. I do not want the United Kingdom to be in a position of saying, “We are washing our hands of this,” but there comes a point when it is completely impossible. Until the envoys have reported and until the work has been done, I do not think that stage has yet been reached. Each issue that makes it more difficult, as we have seen today, runs the risk of that day coming closer.

Chris Matheson: Israel will rightly face international condemnation and obloquy for these actions, but the demolitions will go ahead anyway. Aside from the Trump regime in America, which is part of the problem, is there anybody out there to whom Israel might listen? The impression it gives at the moment is of a state going rogue that does not actually want to be part of the international community.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman puts it very forcefully. Israel co-operates in a variety of international organisations, and all the states that work with Israel must and should have some influence with it. He is right to talk about the United States, which is plainly its major relationship, but Israel has a strong relationship with the EU and it has a growing relationship with a number of other Arab states in the region.
This has to be a relationship built not only on what Israel is but on what Israel is to become. Accordingly, such actions raise question marks that friends do not wish to see. Let us see where the influence can be, and let us try to work together so that the Israel we see today, and the Israel we want to see, is the Israel that will be staunch in defence of rights, secure in its own existence and supported by its neighbours, but that works for a just settlement with those who live in the Palestinian areas and in Gaza.

Brendan O'Hara: Following this shameful demolition, what must the state of Israel do for this Government to act? That has to be the question. The Minister has said many times this afternoon that it is not UK Government policy, but does he agree that the time has come for the UK at least to examine genuinely hard-hitting, far-reaching economic sanctions, because negotiation, pleading and appeals to international law have demonstrably failed?

Alistair Burt: I can only repeat what I said earlier. Our policy remains a determination to do everything we can to see that the two-state solution remains viable, to do nothing that will make it less likely and to work with others who are determined to see it become a possibility. All our actions and responses should still be guided by those principles.

Tommy Sheppard: We have now been discussing this for 50 minutes, and I have yet to hear the Minister state a single practical action that the Government propose in response to this atrocity. Like others in this House, I do not doubt his sincerity, but I am alarmed by his reticence to do something about it.
The Minister has hinted that the Government are considering further measures, and he has alluded to discussions with international partners. If the Government themselves are not prepared to take action in the field of economic sanctions to try to put pressure on Israel, will he give a commitment that this Government will not oppose such measures if they are proposed by other Governments in international forums?

Alistair Burt: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s admonitions, but I will not make policy standing here at the Dispatch Box. I indicated that this needs a considered response, which we are undertaking in company with others. I am sorry that is not as neat as a swift, immediate response, but I think it is the right response. We will consider with others what to do.
I have listened very carefully to the House, and I hope others have listened to the feeling the House has expressed and take due note of the deep concerns that Members have rightly expressed, whatever position they have taken in the past, about the actions that have taken place today. I hope those concerns will go loudly around the world.

SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES

Michael Gove: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future for Britain’s fishing industry. Today, we are publishing a White Paper, “Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations”, which sets out how we can benefit both our economy and our environment when we leave the European Union, and take back control of our seas. The White Paper outlines how the Government can ensure that more of the fish in our waters is caught by our boats and benefits our fishing communities. We will also aspire to the highest environmental standards, so we can ensure that our seas are healthy and productive for future generations.
The United Kingdom is blessed by waters that contain some of the historically richest fishing grounds in the world. Those waters sustained a fishing industry that was at the heart of coastal communities from Shetland to Cornwall. Thousands were employed in catching, processing and marketing fish, which enjoyed a global reputation for excellence. But in recent decades both the health of our fishing industry and the management of our fish stocks has been undermined by the operation of the European Union’s common fisheries policy. As a result of the CFP, more than half of the fish in our  own waters has been caught by foreign vessels. Access to fishing opportunities has been allocated according to out of date formulae which do not properly reflect either changes in our global climate or advances in marine science. During our membership of the CFP, we have seen jobs in fisheries decline, businesses go to the wall and communities hollowed out, but now that we are leaving the EU and taking back control of our waters, a brighter future beckons.
Today’s White Paper outlines how, as an independent coastal state, under international law, we will be in control of the seas that make up our exclusive economic zone—the waters up to 200 nautical miles out from our coastline or halfway between our nation and others. We will determine, in annual negotiations with our neighbours, who has access to our waters. We will also ensure that any additional fishing opportunities then available to our vessels are allocated fairly and thoughtfully to help support vessels of all sizes and communities across the UK. Fisheries will be a separate strand of our future relationship with the EU from the future economic partnership. Through the fisheries strand there will be a separate process, whereby the EU and the UK, as an independent coastal state, will negotiate on access to waters and fishing opportunities on an annual basis.
Outside the CFP we can also be more ambitious environmentally; we can make sure that our future fishing policies are truly sustainable, and that they protect and enhance marine habitats, in line with the goals of our 25-year environment plan. Sustainability is key to a successful fisheries industry. We will continue to work under the principle of maximum sustainable yield, and we will use the best available science to create a policy that ensures profitability and resilience for decades to come. We are fortunate that Britain is a world leader in fisheries science and marine conservation, and we will use that expertise and the flexibility that  comes from new fishing opportunities to ensure the current methods of managing stocks, such as the ban on discarding fish caught over quota, work better and in the interests of both the industry and the environment.
We will also ensure that all foreign vessels seeking to fish in our waters will be allowed to do so only if they adhere to our high sustainability standards. We will deploy the most sophisticated monitoring technology to ensure those standards are rigorously policed and upheld. We will deploy not only technology, but the vessels, aircraft and people required to safeguard our waters. We will also consider whether and how to replace the European maritime and fisheries fund, which has supported the sector across the UK.
Of course, delivering for the UK fishing industry depends on close collaboration with the devolved Administrations. The White Paper sets out our approach to develop a UK framework for fisheries management that will respect the devolution settlements, and, where necessary, we will maintain the overall coherence of the UK’s fisheries policy. This will help deliver our international obligations and protect the functioning of the hugely important UK internal market.
However, there are specific opportunities that this White Paper outlines where we can better support the sector in England. We can look at new opportunities for those in the current under-10 metre category, who have suffered particularly badly from some aspects of past policy. We can also look at running a targeted scientific trial system based on effort, or days at sea, rather than a quota for some low-impact inshore fisheries, although of course any trial would have to ensure that the system’s operation was consistent with our commitment to sustainable fishing.
Over the past year, this Government have explained how we can deliver a green Brexit—a suite of measures that replaces the existing common agricultural policy and CFP with new approaches that better serve both our economy and the environment. Alongside replacements for the CAP and CFP, we have also introduced policies that contribute to a cleaner, greener planet and, in particular, healthier, more resilient rivers, seas and oceans. We have introduced reforms to the water industry; introduced a world-leading ban on the plastic microbeads in rinse-off personal care products; called for evidence on new measures to restrict the use of other single use plastics; and, subject to consultation, we are setting out how we might introduce a deposit return scheme for plastic bottles, ban the sale of plastic straws, plastic-stemmed cotton buds and plastic stirrers; and extend the 5p plastic carrier bag charge to all retailers.
We have worked with other nations, through the Commonwealth Clean Oceans Alliance and the G7, to further enhance the health and productivity of our marine environment, and the global leadership the Prime Minister has shown in securing cleaner seas has been recognised by the United Nations. Now, with our departure from the European Union, we can demonstrate even more ambitious leadership in our own waters. We can regenerate our coastal communities, we can ensure our fishing industry enjoys an economic renaissance, and we can do so by putting the highest environmental standards at the heart of everything we do. This White Paper charts that course, and I commend it to this House.

Sue Hayman: The Secretary of State made fisheries the poster child for the leave campaign, and a number of promises were made to the fishing industry and coastal communities about what Brexit would mean for them. So far, he has categorically failed to deliver, and there are fears that this White Paper is just more of the same. There is a huge gap between his vision and what he actually ends up delivering. Promises made about taking back control of waters during transition will not be delivered, despite what Ministers said right up to the point of their U-turn. This went against assurances the Secretary of State gave to this House and to coastal communities to take back absolute control of waters on day one, and he went on to assess his own performance as delivering a “sub-optimal outcome” for the fishing industry.
This White Paper is full of optimism for the negotiations, but the only deal so far agreed on fishing is that we will keep EU fishing policies during the transition period. We are not holding our breath that this will all go according to plan. Future customs arrangements will be key to the fishing industry but, given reports that the Secretary of State physically ripped up the Prime Minister’s preferred customs option, it is clear that the big decisions for the negotiations, including those on fishing, are a long way from being agreed. Some 70% of what we catch we export, and 80% of the fish we eat, we import. Why should the fishing industry believe his rhetoric today when fundamental questions on customs go unanswered? Trade and access are entirely separate issues according to the White Paper. So far, nothing about the EU’s negotiating position says this will work, so how realistic does he think this position is?
I welcome the commitment to be environmentally ambitious. In that case, will the Secretary of State support Labour’s proposals for national marine parks? I also welcome his commitment to collaboration with the devolved Administrations. What clarity can he give on the future fisheries workforce, including EU workers, who are so vital for the catching sector? Will every penny of European maritime and fisheries fund be replaced, and what is the mechanism for delivering that? Will the Treasury be taking a slice, as it plans to do for agricultural subsidies?
The White Paper talks warmly about the coastal communities fund, but a recent parliamentary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) revealed that only about 6% of the fund has been awarded to the fishing sector to date. If the Government really think fishing is the lifeblood of coastal communities, why are they not backing this up with the funding that the industry desperately needs? We do not have to wait until Brexit to give the small businesses that are the backbone of our fishing sector a better deal. The Secretary of State has powers today to adjust quotas and to help, especially, the under-10 fleet. So will he make a commitment today not to wait until Brexit to do the right thing and help those boats?
There is no point in catching more fish if it is going to rot at our border, awaiting export, trying to reach markets. Fishing communities such as those I represent need a fairer deal for the catching and processing sectors, which are the backbone of our local economies and which drive economic regeneration in our coastal towns. If the Secretary of State thinks he can avoid scrutiny on  the promises made to the fishing sector in the past, he is sadly mistaken. Warm soundbites do not reassure coastal communities. I assure the Secretary of State that Labour will be holding his feet to the fire to ensure that the promises that he makes today are delivered.

Michael Gove: I thank the hon. Lady for her generous welcome of so much of the White Paper. I thank her, too, for reflecting on its optimistic tone, which reflects the sunny disposition that is always there in DEFRA Ministers’ statements.
The hon. Lady asked what we have already achieved. Not only have we already achieved withdrawal from the London fisheries convention, but we have made it clear, as has the European Union, that although we of course will have a transition process, in the December 2020 Council—that is, even before the transition process ends—the UK will be treated as an independent coastal state and will negotiate as a third country. The European Union acknowledges that we will be leaving and negotiating separately at that point, and that is something that the whole House, and certainly the Opposition, can welcome.
The hon. Lady referred to the fact that 70% of the fish that we catch is exported, and of course it is, because, as I mentioned in my statement, it is high-quality fish caught by the brave men and women who go to sea. We will of course ensure through our future economic partnership, which is being negotiated separately, that we continue to have as-frictionless-as-possible access to European markets. Michel Barnier, someone whom I hugely admire, has himself pointed out that he wants to ensure that the free trade agreement that is concluded between the UK and the EU has neither quotas nor tariffs, so we can look forward to a bright future there, as well.
The hon. Lady mentioned national marine parks. That sounds like a great idea, but while Labour has been talking in the abstract about national marine parks, the Government have been getting on with the hard work of designating and protecting new marine protected areas around our coastline. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has built on the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) to show how a Government who are absolutely committed to instituting appropriate protection for our coastline can make a real difference.
The hon. Lady was quite right to mention the under-10 fleet. As I mentioned in my statement and as is made clear in the White Paper, we want to ensure that new fishing opportunities are allocated in a way that supports that fleet but, again following the steps undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury when he was fisheries Minister, quota has already been reallocated to support the under-10 fleet.
I wish to make one final point, which I suspect I may make a couple of times this afternoon. These opportunities arise as a result of our departure from the common fisheries policy. When an opportunity was given to vote for absence and departure from the common fisheries policy in the European Parliament, Labour Members of the European Parliament voted against it. It is all very  well to will the end, but unless someone supports the means, which Labour has not done, they are not a true friend of our fishermen.

Richard Benyon: My right hon. Friend will know that there is no greater critic of the common fisheries policy than me, but I am sure he would agree that even had we not gone into it, we would probably still have a problem, because man’s technical ability to harvest vast quantities from the sea has been a problem the world over. I very much hope that the White Paper contains a firm commitment to an ecosystems approach to fisheries management and that within that there is the possibility of rebalancing fishing opportunity to try to assist the smaller, more local fishing fleet and give it a fairer cut of the opportunity.

Michael Gove: When my right hon. Friend was a DEFRA Minister, he contributed significantly to improvements to the common fisheries policy, and fishing and coastal communities throughout the United Kingdom owe him a particular debt. He is right on both his points: it is the case that, in or out of the CFP, we have to make sure that conservation measures are at the heart of our future policy, and it is also right that we do more, particularly for coastal communities where they use inshore vessels, to ensure that opportunities are reallocated to benefit them and the communities and businesses built around them.

Deidre Brock: We have heard so much about red lines since 2016, but those red lines might now be considered red herrings. I have read the documents issued this morning. Given the commitment to
“continue to work with our European partners to regulate fishing and to set harvest rates”,
will the fleets still be subject to the CFP, but without a Minister at the table when decisions are being agreed? Given that maximum sustainable yield has been established and the Secretary of State has already made it clear to the Danish fleet that it and all others will still be welcome to fish in UK waters, will our fleets continue to be subject to the same quotas as they currently are?
Given that the UK Government
“will consider whether and how to replace”
the European maritime and fisheries fund, is there a possibility that the fleets will receive reduced funding, or that funding might be redistributed on an uneven footing to suit a Government’s political ends? Is there even a possibility that the fleets will no longer receive funding at all? I note the point about the World Trade Organisation wanting to see an end to fisheries subsidies, but wonder whether raw, unfettered competition is really best for Scotland’s fishing fleet.
On partnership working, the Government say that frameworks will “not normally” be changed without the devolved Administrations’ consent. That “not normally” bothers me. May we have a guarantee that frameworks will not be put in place without the explicit agreement of the Scottish Government? Welsh and Northern Irish Members will no doubt press a similar case. May we also have a guarantee that no future changes will be made without unanimity—that no Administration will be overruled?
Finally, before Mr Speaker’s eyes turn disapprovingly upon me, I note the establishment of an English marine management reserve; will that have Barnett consequentials?

John Bercow: The hon. Lady’s anxiety was misplaced, as she had 14 seconds to spare. She was a model citizen and will now be esteemed throughout the House.

Michael Gove: In response to the hon. Lady’s questions, I think the answers are no, no, no, no and yes.
The Scottish National party’s position on future fisheries is an uncomfortable one, because it has in the past represented some of the most important fishing communities in this country, but does so no longer. One reason why it no longer represents those communities in this House is its failure to stand up for them and its failure to demand our exit from the common fisheries policy. There is a fundamental weakness that no amount of faux outrage or weak punning can mask. I have the highest regard for individuals in the Scottish Government who are trying to work with us and our superb team of civil servants to ensure that we have frameworks that safeguard Scottish fishermen’s interest, but Scottish fishermen have no friends among the Scottish National party representatives in this place, which is why the SNP Benches are so scanty and their arguments even thinner.

John Redwood: Is this not a great Brexit opportunity to restore our fishing grounds and rebuild our fishing industry? Is it not the case that we have a huge opportunity to make sure that much more of our fish is landed by our boats, so that we ensure that our traditional fish and chips once again includes fish from our fishing grounds, properly looked after by a national policy?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. During the referendum campaign, he made a passionate and coherent case for many of the benefits that could accrue to Britain as a result of leaving the EU. My friend outside this House, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, who argued for a slightly different position during the referendum, made the point that when it comes to fish, certainly in the Conservative party, we are all Brexiteers now.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As he said, “a brighter future beckons”. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when we leave the EU and get fishing back into our own hands again and under our own control, the fishing-village initiatives and the grant assistance will still be available, so that our fishing sector will be sustainable for the long term?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. It is our commitment to make sure that we support all the coastal and fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom that have suffered in the past, but for which a brighter future does beckon.

Owen Paterson: You will remember, Mr Speaker, that in 2005, having travelled all round the British Isles and visited many fishing nations in the north Atlantic and the Falklands, the Conservative party published a Green Paper on how a sane fisheries policy would be run and managed, and we fought the 2005 general election on that paper. This is a  really great day. I heartily congratulate the Secretary of State for his clear statement that we will take control of the 200 miles. We said at the time:
“The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform.”
Its most egregious fault is the disgusting issue of quota discards, whereby it is estimated that up to a million tonnes of fish are thrown back dead every year. The Secretary of State has gone into great detail. In the transition period, will trials be carried out on refined effort control, employing catch-composition percentages?

John Bercow: I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) is back in the House and in rude health. May I just say that I do hope that, one day, he will tell us what he really thinks?

Michael Gove: It is great to see my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) back in his place. He has been a pioneer of many of the policies that we are announcing today, and I am in his debt. It is the case that we have talked about introducing pilots of some form of effort control—days at sea—providing that that is consistent, of course, with important environmental and sustainable factors. We will be working with the industry to ensure that we bring in those pilots as quickly as possible.

Ben Bradshaw: On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State repeatedly cited Norway and Iceland as models for our future fishing relationship with the rest of Europe. He knows that Norway is in the European economic area, and that Iceland is in the European Free Trade Association, which guarantees them free and unfettered access to the European Union for their exports. Is not his claim that he can claim back quota that other countries currently hold while guaranteeing free and unfettered access for our industry’s vital exports to the European Union another cruel betrayal being perpetrated on our fishing industry?

Michael Gove: The right hon. Gentleman served with distinction as a DEFRA Minister, and I take seriously his contributions on this matter. As I stress, there are two separate strands to our negotiations with the EU. There are negotiations that we will have as an independent coastal state. Iceland and Norway are very successful independent coastal states, which have control of their fisheries, and which also ensures that the fish that they catch are successfully exported. We will have a separate set of negotiations as part of the future economic partnership.

Peter Aldous: This statement and the White Paper are very welcome as they provide the framework to revitalise the Lowestoft and East Anglian fishing industry. Does the Secretary of State agree that now is the time for regional strategies to be developed within this national framework to ensure that coastal communities derive maximum benefit from Brexit? These strategies should look at issues such as the economic link, protecting the marine environment from such damaging activities as electronic pulse fishing, access to quota for small-scale fishermen and infrastructure investment.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend puts his finger on exactly those issues that we do need to make sure are at the heart of any developed regional strategy, particularly for fishermen in East Anglia. He is absolutely right.

Alan Campbell: The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund will allocate more than £250 million to UK fishing communities by 2020. The Secretary of State has chosen to ignore this question twice, so let me ask it in a different form: has the Treasury guaranteed that money after we leave.

Michael Gove: Yes, it has. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that EMFF funding, which is committed before we leave the European Union, will continue to be paid.

Sarah Wollaston: As an independent coastal state, we will be able to decide who can access our waters after 2020 and on what terms, but that will be subject to negotiation. Will the Secretary of State reassure the fishing community in my constituency that its interests will not be traded away after the transition period? In considering the environmental aspects of this, can he say whether those terms will also include a ban on electric pulse fishing?

Michael Gove: I absolutely share the concern about pulse fishing, which has been articulated by my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous). Yes, absolutely. She and I may differ on one or two aspects of politics, but one of the many things that we are united on is our belief that we need to ensure that, as an independent coastal state, we control access to our waters, and that, separately, we secure the deepest and friendliest trade, economic and other relationship with the EU.

Melanie Onn: rose—

John Bercow: Oh, yes, there are lots of fish in Grimsby. Let us hear about the situation.

Melanie Onn: The Secretary of State made reference in his statement to the fact that more than half the fish in our waters are caught by foreign vessels. If the Government are so committed to supporting UK fisheries, why have four out of the six most lucrative fishing licences in the world been awarded to a Norwegian company rather than SG Fisheries or Fortuna Ltd, both of which are UK-led companies? Is that how he treats his true friends?

Michael Gove: I simply remark that Norway outside the European Union seems to be doing rather well.

Douglas Ross: The Secretary of State knows that my anger and disappointment at what the UK Government agreed in March was echoed by many fishing communities in Moray. Therefore, I really do welcome what is in this White Paper, which has been roundly welcomed by the fishing industry, with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation calling it a positive statement for taking back control of our waters. Will he confirm from the Dispatch Box that this UK Conservative Government will not allow a link between access to our waters and access to EU markets? Does he agree that the shambolic position of the SNP is indefensible considering that it wants to go straight back into the hated CFP, and will he accept my invitation to come to  Moray to meet Moray fishermen to discuss his vision for the future for the UK as an independent coastal state?

Michael Gove: Those are three bullseyes—back of the net, I am tempted to say, on three occasions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have separate negotiations, exactly as he requested. It is also the case, exactly as he points out, that the SNP is in a regrettable position on this issue, and my heart goes out to it and its supporters for having to justify their inconsistencies on this issue. It is always a pleasure to visit his constituency, and I will try to do so later this year.

Alistair Carmichael: May I welcome the substance of this White Paper? It has many of the things that I have long wanted and that the fishermen in my constituency would want to see there. Of course, whether we see it in the future will depend on the Government’s ability to hold fast on their promises of separating trade and access to waters, or at the very least a bit faster than they were able to hold to their promises on the transitional arrangements. Looking to the future for a fisheries management, the real opportunity here, surely, is to do things differently for our smaller inshore fleets. Will the Secretary of State take as his guiding principle a presumption of local management when it comes to arranging these opportunities for the future?

Michael Gove: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the generous and constructive tone that he takes, which is of a piece with all his contributions in this House. Absolutely, in Shetland, in particular, there are communities that we want to work with precisely along the lines that he mentions.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: My right hon. Friend should know that the fishermen just south of the Scottish border, along the north-east coast, are really pleased to see the progress that has been made with this White Paper, but the issue continues to be how we will tackle the choke species issue, because that is something that continues to concern them.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. One thing that we hope to be able to do is to use additional quota, which we can allocate to UK vessels to help deal with that particular challenge. It is also the case that the White Paper includes proposals, which we hope will make it easier for individual fishermen who catch over quota to be able to land all the fish that they have caught in a way that ensures that we can have environmentally effective management. We look forward to responses from the industry to our proposals.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Secretary of State for producing this paper and thank him especially for meeting the fishermen and the industry in Northern Ireland, ensuring that some of the points that they raised are reflected in this White Paper. That is a positive message. In his recent meeting with Minister Creed, did he discuss voisinage agreements, or good neighbour agreements, with the Republic of Ireland? Did he take the opportunity to remind the Republic of Ireland that a good deal for us with Europe will mean a good deal for the Republic of Ireland in our sea fisheries waters?

Michael Gove: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to have conversations with a number of representatives of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, which helped inform the paper. Absolutely, in conversations with Minister Creed and with other Ministers in the Irish Government, we have always sought, both in the voisinage agreement and in other areas, to try to work in the interests of all those who fish in our waters.

John Whittingdale: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he confirm that taking back control of our waters will allow us to design a fisheries policies that will be beneficial not just to the commercial fishing industry, but to recreational sea anglers, and will he bear their interests in mind?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Indeed, the White Paper explains how angling, which is a hugely important part of the life of the nation, can benefit from the additional opportunities that accrue as a result of life outside the European Union. He is absolutely right to underline that, and we look forward to responses obviously not just from the fishing industry, but from recreational and other anglers as well.

Kerry McCarthy: Will the Secretary of State explain the logic behind retaining the existing system of fixed quota allocations for the current quota? As he will know, there has been a great deal of unhappiness about that. Three multimillion-pound companies currently control nearly two thirds of our fishing stock. If he wants to take back control, should we not be reviewing something that is now more than 20 years out of date?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes a very good point. One of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) did when he was a Minister was to establish in law that we could move away from some of the FQAs, but appropriate notice needs to be given in order to do so because the way in which people exercise those rights has been safeguarded in law. However, the direction of travel that the hon. Lady outlines is one with which I sympathise.

Andrew Murrison: We will need a growing and sustainable workforce if we are to land more of our own fish, yet approximately half those who undertake the difficult and poorly paid work done by crew on board fishing vessels are from outside the British Isles. What will be done to ensure that we have the workforce that we will need to rely on if we are to land more of our own fish?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am in conversation with the Immigration Minister and the Home Secretary to ensure that the fishing and fish processing industries will have access to the labour that they need in order to take advantage of these opportunities.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome the White Paper and its policies to revive coastal communities, which were being devastated by our membership of the EU and the impact of the common fisheries policy. I know that the Secretary of State is an enthusiastic supporter of the wellbeing of those communities, but given  the Government’s record in the negotiations to date, will he give us an assurance and a guarantee that nothing will be conceded or done during negotiations on the future trade arrangement that would dilute the Government’s ability to deliver on the aspirations in the White Paper?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. Today’s White Paper is a document that has been agreed across the Government. It represents the Government’s negotiating position and Government policy, and all Ministers and our negotiating team are united behind it.

David Duguid: I thank my right hon. Friend and his whole team at DEFRA for pulling the White Paper together—a lot of work has clearly gone into it. I also thank him for visiting the new fish market in Peterhead in my constituency earlier this week. I think that that was about the third time in the last year that he has visited Peterhead, which is most welcome. However, will he confirm that it is the Government’s position that market access for fisheries products is kept separate from the question of fishing opportunities and access to waters?

Michael Gove: I thank my hon. Friend for the welcome that he and his constituents gave me on Monday, when I visited Peterhead for the third time this year. I also thank him and his Scottish Conservative colleagues for their support and for the detailed analysis that they have provided to ensure that we deliver on this policy. It has been a real pleasure to have Scottish Conservative Members who are absolutely committed to the health of the fishing industry and who—rather than trying to make cheap political points off the back of hard-working men and women, as some other parties in this House have sought to do—have put the welfare of the coastal communities that they represent in this House first. It is an exemplary way in which to proceed.

Alan Brown: The Secretary of State said in his statement:
“The White Paper sets out our approach to develop a UK framework for fisheries management that will respect the devolution settlements”,
yet he did not properly engage the Scottish Government in the production of this White Paper. He stood at the Dispatch Box and just said, “No, no, no,” to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) about framework guarantees.
The White Paper itself says that frameworks will “not normally be adjusted” without the consent of the devolved institutions. We know what those weasel words mean. Page 22 of the document states:
“The powers concerning international relations, on access to waters and setting quota, will be exercised at UK level”.
Is not that Tory speak for, “The UK Government will do what they want and expect the devolved Administrations to like it or lump it”?

Michael Gove: No.

Kirstene Hair: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s renewed commitment that we will leave the hated CFP by 2020. The only MPs in Scotland who pledged to leave the CFP during the election campaign  were the Scottish Conservatives, because the SNP is desperate to drag us back in. Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that getting out of this disastrous EU institution will give renewed opportunities for coastal towns such as Arbroath in my constituency of Angus?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is right. Voters in Montrose and Arbroath voted for Scottish Conservatives because they wanted us out of the common fisheries policy. That was why Scottish Conservatives won seats at the last general election, and it why the Scottish National party is in such an embittered position. In Strasbourg and Brussels, its representatives vote to keep us in the common fisheries policy, but in coastal communities, the Scottish National party pretends that it is the friend of fishing communities. I am afraid that such fundamental inconsistency from a party that calls itself the voice of Scotland is frankly a disgrace.

Sylvia Hermon: It is a pleasure to hear the DEFRA Secretary at the Dispatch Box. Even if I am not convinced by half of what he has said, he is always very entertaining, positive and upbeat. With his characteristic enthusiasm, he has repeatedly said that we are taking back control of our waters. For the avoidance of doubt and any ambiguity, are Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough exclusively British waters? Also, has he had the opportunity to speak to his good friend the Foreign Secretary to confirm the clarity that he is going to deliver to the House and the people of Northern Ireland as he steps up to the Dispatch Box?

Michael Gove: The first thing to say is that I am in constant communication with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Lady’s point about Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough has been very well articulated, but I would not want to cut across my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady is incredibly generous in the compliments that she pays DEFRA Ministers. May I simply say in return that we in DEFRA are huge fans of the hon. Lady?

Neil Parish: I congratulate the Secretary of State on an excellent White Paper—the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee greatly looks forward to scrutinising it. Our fishermen will get their fish back. For 40 years they have been denied that, and it will be great to see. When we do our deals with the EU, will we also negotiate with Norway and Iceland? The fish move around, especially with the temperature of the water, so let us try to ensure that we do actually catch the fish.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.  I look forward to giving evidence to his Committee and I am grateful to members of his Committee for their support in the preparation of the White Paper. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; of course we are going to be negotiating with the European Union, but we also need to negotiate with other independent coastal states, including Norway and Iceland, in the interests of all who fish in our seas.

Liz Saville-Roberts: This morning I contacted the Welsh Fishermens Association, which tells me that four weeks of delays to our current  trading relationships would leave the Welsh fishing fleet in danger of collapse, and that six weeks of delays would lead to catastrophic business failures. Will the Secretary of State outline how he intends to use his influence in the Cabinet to ensure that Welsh fishermen face neither tariff nor non-tariff barriers when trading with the EU in the future?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes a good point. As I mentioned earlier, it is the European Union’s position that it wants to conclude a trade agreement—whatever other aspects it may contain—with neither quotas nor tariff barriers. I hope that not only Welsh fishermen but fishermen across the country can benefit from that. I know that the hon. Lady’s daughter works in the fishing industry; I wish her all the best for the future.

Richard Drax: As my right hon. Friend knows full well, the Jurassic coast sits in my constituency. Along it, the fishing industry—fishing line and shell fishermen—are relied on very much by local business, as has been described. Three marine conservation zones could be placed along that stretch of coastline. While the fishermen agree to look after fish stocks, they are concerned that the legislative process and the amount of bureaucracy could affect their livelihoods. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the industry that if these zones are implemented, they will not affect the livelihoods of fishermen, who are vital to the tourism sector?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course, the network of marine conservation zones exists to ensure that we can have healthy and sustainable seas for the future. I will, of course, do everything possible to provide reassurance to his constituents. Either I or a DEFRA Minister will make time to ensure that we can see them as well.

Peter Grant: Mike Russell, the Scottish Government’s constitutional relations Minister, has said that the UK Government “failed to engage with” the Scottish Government
“in any significant or meaningful way before producing its White Paper”.
Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy, has said that the Scottish Government were only shown a
“final copy a few days before publication”.
Are these statements true? If not, will the Secretary of State undertake to place in the Library of the House a full record of the discussions that the Government had with the Scottish Government before publishing this document?

Michael Gove: I do not think that anything in this document is a particular surprise to anyone. Of course we shared it with the Scottish Government. Our superb team of officials at DEFRA has been working Scottish Government officials in order to secure an outcome. The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, has been reduced to processology, because on the substance of the matter, I am afraid that the Scottish National party stands against the interests of Scotland’s fishermen because it wants to keep us in the common fisheries policy. This processology misses  the point, which is that Scotland’s fishermen enjoy fantastic new opportunities as a result of a Conservative Government and the leadership shown by 13 superb Scottish Conservative MPs.

Martin Vickers: I welcome the Secretary of State’s White Paper and his statement. He will know that the seafood processing sector is of particular interest in the Grimsby-Cleethorpes area. I welcome the reference to that in the White Paper, as will the industry. Will he assure me and the industry that he will continue to work closely with it to ensure the continuity of supply that is so vital?

Michael Gove: I absolutely will. The processing sector is absolutely critical. We must make sure, as I said earlier, not just that it has access to the labour it needs, but that we do everything to support it in terms of infrastructure and advocacy.

Stephen Gethins: Just to be helpful to the Secretary of State, if he checks the European Parliament record, as I am sure he would like to, he will see that the SNP has, of course, consistently voted against the common fisheries policy.
Fishing communities that I represent—who, incidentally, have not elected a Conservative MP for some decades now—benefit hugely from the European maritime and fisheries fund. Can the Secretary of State assure me that any future funds will at least match what those communities would have had if we had remained in the European Union?

Michael Gove: On the most recent occasion that Scottish National party MEPs had an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment, they stuck with the SNP position, which is to remain in the EU and, of course, to remain in the common fisheries policy as well.
I know that the hon. Gentleman—his re-election to this House by a slim but still clear margin is a reflection of his hard work—represents the constituents in Crail, Anstruther and elsewhere with all the energy and devotion that he brings to so many of his duties. He is right about the MFF: we do need to ensure that the future replacement continues to be as generous as before.

Derek Thomas: I welcome the statement, which will come as a relief to the sector in Newlyn and west Cornwall and is consistent with promises that have been made by the Secretary of State and the Fisheries Minister in Newlyn. After years of decline and the erosion of the fleet, skills and infrastructure as a result of the common fisheries policy, will the Secretary of State give careful consideration to how he and the Government can now support the sector to prepare for a more active and vibrant fishing sector in small coastal communities and larger ports such as Newlyn?

Michael Gove: Yes, absolutely. It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. Of course, Newlyn is one of the most important ports in the south-west. We will do everything that we can to make sure that the harbour gets the investment it needs in order to regenerate and to take advantage of the additional opportunities that life outside the common fisheries policy can provide.

Andrew Percy: Four decades-plus ago, the trawlermen of the Humber were sold down the river by our membership of the European Union. There is still huge anger in our area about how they were treated, which probably explains why we sensibly voted by a margin of 67% to leave the EU. I therefore welcome this announcement. May I urge the Secretary of State to work with the Department of Communities and Local Government—or whatever it is called this week—on the management of the coastal communities fund to look at how we can use it to support more of our young people going into the fishing and food processing industries, and at how we can grow the sector?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I think that one of the reasons why the vote to leave was as high as it was in his constituency was not just memories of what had happened four decades ago, but his force of advocacy in putting the case for the benefits of life outside the European Union. He is right that we need to do a lot more for our coastal communities, which face particular social and economic challenges. Reviving the fishing industry and an economic renaissance in fish processing can help, but there is more to do. With a formidable advocate like my hon. Friend for communities such as Brigg and Goole, I am sure that the Government’s feet will be held to the fire.

Giles Watling: As my right hon. Friend knows, we do not have a very large fishing fleet on the glorious coastline of Clacton-on-Sea, but we do have many fish and chip shops. Will he assure me that, post-Brexit, those who fish in our waters will be encouraged to fish sustainably so that we can enjoy the wide of variety of fish that we currently do?

Michael Gove: It is always a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he is absolutely right. We need to make sure that sustainability is at the heart of everything we do so that we make sure that future generations have the opportunity to enjoy healthy waters and the harvest they bring.

Steve Double: rose—

Eleanor Laing: And finally, with the prize for patience and perseverance, Steve Double.

Steve Double: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for saving the best for last.
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, which will be hugely welcomed by fishing communities across Cornwall, particularly Mevagissey and Newquay in my constituency. Will he commit to ensuring that as this policy is developed, the voice of our fishermen is heard and considered loud and clear, and particularly that of the under-10 metre fleet? May I gently remind him of his offer to come and meet the fishermen in Mevagissey? I look forward to seeing him there soon.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we do need to make sure that we continue to listen to representatives of the fishing industry, who played a big part in making sure that we got the White Paper to the   position that it is in for publication today. I underline my gratitude to him for his invitation, which I am looking forward to taking up.
Finally, let me say that I am very grateful not just to hon. Members who have contributed so constructively to this exchange but, in particular, to the civil servants at DEFRA, who have done an outstanding job in preparing today’s White Paper. They do a superb job not just in making sure that the environment is at the heart of everything we do with regard to fisheries, but in supporting my hon. Friend the Fisheries Minister at every December Council. I am hugely grateful for the contribution that they make, as we all should be.

POINT OF ORDER

Nia Griffith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask your advice on the process by which the Government should inform Her Majesty’s Opposition of changes to business, including questions? As you will be aware, the Government have amended the order of oral questions to bring Defence questions forward by a week to this coming Monday, but they did not inform me or anyone in the Opposition of this fact. This means that those questions will fall before the NATO summit and before the modernising defence programme reports, so my colleagues will not be able to question the Department on the outcome of those events. What would be considered sufficient pretext to make this request, and what would be the standard procedure for notifying the Opposition? I know that the Secretary of State is rather busy with various extra-curricular activities at present, but should not he, his ministerial team or the Government Whips have shown us the courtesy of notifying us of this important change?

Desmond Swayne: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, by bringing this forward, we will have the opportunity to tee up Ministers on issues before they arise at the summit—and, indeed, we will not be denied the opportunity to question Ministers on the outcome of the summit, because there will be further Defence questions.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his further point of order. I can see that we have two sides of the same story, not surprisingly—that is what this Chamber is for. I am concerned by the point of order put forward by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), but the arrangement of questions is of course a matter for the Government, not for the Chair. Mr Speaker has no direct input or influence in how these matters are done. I understand that if changes are made to the order of questions, that is usually discussed through the usual channels. If that has not happened on this occasion, it is regrettable.
I understand, though, that the revised rota was actually published by the Table Office on 13 June and that the new dates for Defence and Home Office orals have been visible in the “Future Business” section of the Order Paper since that date. I appreciate, of course, that is easy to overlook these matters. I understand that the Table Office will explore the best way to highlight changes to the rota in future. However, I am sure that the House has heard both the points made by the hon. Lady and by the right hon. Gentleman—

Hugo Swire: rose—

Eleanor Laing: And it is about to hear a further point from Sir Hugo Swire.

Hugo Swire: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was wondering if you could offer any assistance in enabling those on the Labour  Front Bench to follow parliamentary procedure more closely and to actually read what is printed in good time.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is of course incumbent upon every Member of the House to look at the Order Paper every day, but there are also matters of courtesy to be observed. I think that those courtesies are usually observed, and if there has been a failure to do so on this particular occasion, I am quite sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard these exchanges and that apologies will be forthcoming.

BILL PRESENTED

Rail Passenger (Compensation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bim Afolami, supported by Sir Mike Penning, Tom Tugendhat, Tim Loughton, Huw Merriman, Sir Michael Fallon, Heidi Allen, Anne Main, Teresa Pearce, Mohammad Yasin, Caroline Lucas and Iain Stewart, presented a Bill to make provision for a single compensation scheme for passengers across train operators; to require train operators to pay automatic compensation to season ticket holders and certain other passengers where certain standards of service are not met; to allow train operators to recover compensation paid to passengers from Network Rail in certain circumstances; to establish a body to administer rail compensation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed (Bill 242).

International Development  (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups)

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Stephen Twigg: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in connection with the protection of children and vulnerable adults in receipt of official development assistance and disaster relief.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this ten-minute rule Bill. Safeguarding is one of the most important aspects of the modern workplace. Robust and comprehensive safeguarding procedures aim to ensure that children and vulnerable adults are protected from abuse and exploitation. The abuse of power is wrong in any context but, when it happens in the aid and development sector, it can affect some of the most vulnerable people in the world. When people do not have access to food, clean water, shelter, education or medicine, they place their utmost trust in those who are delivering those services. It is crucial that the voices of victims and survivors are at the heart of this debate.
The recent highly publicised scandals in the aid sector are not new. In 2002, the United Nations published a special report after allegations of sexual abuse were made against UN peacekeepers and non-governmental organisations in a number of African countries. That was followed by a Save the Children report in 2008 and a further UN report in 2015. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my friend, the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), who is a long-standing member of the Select Committee on International Development and has been a vocal campaigner for better protection of children and women facing sexual exploitation and abuse—an issue that she highlighted following a visit to the world humanitarian summit in Istanbul in 2016.
In February this year, The Times published the findings of an investigation into the behaviour of some Oxfam staff after the 2011 Haiti earthquake. The most appalling allegations were that humanitarian workers were paying young women and girls for sex. That happened in a community that was facing an extreme humanitarian crisis. The investigation, which was the first in a series, saw the development sector come under intense scrutiny for its safeguarding and reporting mechanisms.
On the back of those allegations, the International Development Committee began an inquiry into sexual exploitation and abuse in the aid sector. We wanted to understand why there had been a failure to protect the vulnerable and how safeguarding practice could be improved. We have received more than 50 pieces of written evidence and taken oral evidence from 20 witnesses. Yesterday, the Secretary of State came before the Committee to reaffirm that victims and survivors will be at the heart of any reforms that the Department for International Development undertakes in this area. Last week, as part of our inquiry, we visited the UN in New York. We wanted to scrutinise directly its safeguarding policies and challenge it to do more to protect vulnerable groups. We also visited the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Washington to look at how they are reforming their safeguarding mechanisms.
A common concern throughout our inquiry has been the lack of a universal approach to safeguarding to cover aid and humanitarian workers. Kevin Watkins from Save the Children highlighted that in his evidence to us, saying:
“as a sector, we would benefit from legislation that established humanitarian aid work as a regulated sector…We need a globalisation of the DBS system.”
Currently there is no coherent system for vetting prospective aid workers. Many UK-based aid organisations require their staff to pass a basic background check before they can work with the vulnerable in this country. However, those checks do not necessarily extend to people working overseas. I would like to see a system that enables organisations to vet prospective humanitarian workers to check their suitability to work with children and vulnerable adults. Ideally, that system would be comprehensive and global, meaning that people working for multilateral organisations such as the UN and the World Bank and for other Governments would be vetted, as well as those working for non-governmental organisations.
Setting up such a system is surely an urgent priority, but it will be challenging. There are well-documented concerns—for example, about data protection and data sharing—that need to be addressed. There is also the issue of cost. At the moment, the onus is on organisations to fund safeguarding checks, but that could put smaller organisations at a disadvantage. We heard last week that United States Agency for International Development delivery contracts often include funding for these kinds of background checks. If we are to establish a successful vetting and referencing system, DFID should consider how it might help to shoulder the cost for these checks. We raised that with the Secretary of State yesterday, and I was encouraged that the Department recognises the challenge, particularly for smaller organisations. It might be costly in the short term, but vulnerable groups surely need to be kept safe whatever the cost.
The last year has been a watershed for the campaign against sexual harassment and assault. The Me Too movement has rightly focused more closely than ever on the behaviour of people in the workplace. How an organisation deals with issues of harassment and abuse sends a signal about its ethos. There are serious concerns that some humanitarian workers have been let off lightly or even exonerated altogether when instances of harassment have occurred. Allegations that abuse or harassment were swept under the carpet for the sake of organisational reputation have been made against a number of aid agencies. That is not acceptable in any workplace, and all organisations should have robust safeguarding mechanisms against issues of this nature. Over the course of our inquiry, it has become apparent that these mechanisms are nowhere near as robust as they should be in the aid and development sector.
As a result of those concerns, the International Development (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups) Bill was put together. The purpose is to ensure that all UK aid is provided in a way that is likely to contribute to the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults from sexual exploitation and abuse. For that to be achieved, all workers in the aid sector would be regulated in line with the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. The level to which these workers would be checked would be similar to the level to which social workers  and teachers are checked. The Bill also makes provision for the Secretary of State to bring us into line with any future international regulations, as well as requiring her to produce an annual report on safeguarding within UK aid.
This year, DFID has taken a leading role in addressing the issue of safeguarding. In February, the Secretary of State wrote to all organisations that receive UK aid, asking them to spell out in detail their safeguarding policies. That included NGOs, multilateral partners  and other DFID suppliers, numbering well over 1,000 organisations. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has continued to show leadership and a strong personal commitment on this issue.
This Bill alone will not of course solve all the safeguarding problems in the aid sector, but this is an opportunity for the United Kingdom to develop the very best domestic practice. However, global change is required if we are to see real and sustained improvement. The safeguarding summit in October provides a welcome and vital opportunity to push for a global vetting and referencing system, as well as a long overdue platform for survivors and victims. With strong United Kingdom leadership from DFID, we can ensure that the most vulnerable are protected from predatory practices in the future.
I am grateful to have had this opportunity to highlight a very important issue, which the Select Committee that I chair is addressing at the moment, and I thank Members on both sides of the House for their support for the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Stephen Twigg, Mrs Pauline Latham, Mrs Maria Miller, Sarah Champion, Chris Law, Jim Shannon, Caroline Lucas, Layla Moran, Mr Virendra Sharma, Mrs Helen Grant, Paul Scully and Lloyd Russell-Moyle present the Bill.
Stephen Twigg accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed (Bill 243).

SUPPLY AND APPROPRIATION  (MAIN ESTIMATES) (NO. 2) BILL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Ivory Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,
That the Order of 4 June 2018 (Ivory Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(David Rutley.)

Ivory Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee
New Clause 1

Requirement to amend definition of ivory

“(1) Within 12 months of the coming into force of section 35 of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a draft of an instrument containing regulations under section 35(2) before each House of Parliament.
(2) As soon as practicable after laying a draft of an instrument under subsection (1), a Minister of the Crown must propose a motion to approve the draft instrument in each House of Parliament.
(3) The instrument laid in draft under subsection (1) must amend section 35(1) so as to include ivory from a hippopotamus, killer whale, narwhal, sperm whale, or walrus in the definition of ivory in that section.”—(Sue Hayman.)
This new clause creates a duty to, within 12 months of this section coming into force, lay an instrument in draft which would include in the definition of ivory all the ivory-bearing species listed in an Appendix to the CITES, and to propose to each House that the draft instrument be approved.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Sue Hayman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Report on the international ivory market—
“(1) Within 12 months of section 1 of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before each House of Parliament a report on the international ivory market.
(2) The report must as far as practicable analyse the impact of this Act on the demand for ivory in the United Kingdom and in other countries.
(3) The report must consider—
(a) the impact on nations or communities that generate income from ivory of—
(i) the provisions of this Act, and
(ii) international agreements related to the ivory trade,
(b) the work of the Department for International Development in—
(i) reducing the global demand for ivory, and
(ii) mitigating any negative impact of the provisions of this Act on nations or communities that generate an income from ivory.”
This new clause would require a report to be laid before each House of Parliament on the international ivory market, including how the Department for International Development is working to reduce global demand for ivory.
Government amendments 1 to 4.

Sue Hayman: I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 2 in my name and in those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Labour’s new clause 1 seeks to expand the definition of ivory to cover the species included in the convention on international trade in endangered species. Members from both sides of the House have voiced their support for the principle of extending the Bill beyond elephants. This is, after all, the Ivory Bill, not merely the elephant ivory Bill. It is not every day that an Ivory Bill comes around, so who knows when this  House will have a similar opportunity to take action? Today provides a unique opportunity to enshrine protections for all ivory-bearing species, particularly those listed under CITES, which are some of those most at risk.
This broadening of the definition of ivory is not just because many CITES species are at risk of becoming endangered, but to stop the focus on banning just elephant ivory and so pushing poachers towards other forms of ivory, including hippo, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus ivory. As the Born Free Foundation has stated:
“It would be a tragedy if we worked really hard to save elephants and other species were collateral damage in the process… We recognise that the trade is entrepreneurial and will move to wherever there is an opportunity.”
Both the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Born Free Foundation stated in their evidence to Members that an extension of the definition of ivory would be welcome, provided that it did not delay the passage of the Bill. During the evidence session, Will Travers of the Born Free Foundation said:
“From 2007 to 2016—just under a decade—78,000 hippos and hippo products were exported by CITES parties. Hong Kong imported 60 tonnes of hippo ivory between 2004 and 2014… Those are not insignificant by any measure—they are enormously significant.”––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee,  12 June 2018; c. 5, Q2.]
As I have said on the record, the Opposition are keen for this legislation not to be unnecessarily delayed, but we must also ensure that it is the best it can possibly be. There appears to have been a rush to push it through at any cost before the international wildlife conference in October, despite the advice I have been given that this is not achievable: it will not get through all the legislative stages in time for the conference. Will the Minister clarify whether the target has been to get it in place before the conference? Will he provide an explanation to the House as to why the Government have sought to oppose sensible and necessary amendments to the Bill on the basis of not wishing to delay it?

Hugo Swire: In the spirit of consensus, will the hon. Lady also take this opportunity to congratulate this Government on being the first to legislate in this area?

Sue Hayman: As the right hon. Gentleman will see, I shall be doing just that later in my speech. That is a very important point, and we do support the Bill.
Will the Minister look again at the arguments the Government made against Labour’s attempts to broaden the scope of the Bill in Committee? One of the arguments was that such an amendment could be challenged under the European convention on human rights. As I said in response in Committee, this is clutching at straws, and it is directly in opposition to the legal advice that I have sought, so I want to put this argument to rest once and for all.
According to the legal advice I have taken, primary legislation can be challenged only on human rights and EU law grounds. I have been informed that in the case of human rights, the argument would have to rest on article 1 of protocol 1 on the peaceful enjoyment of property, which is also subject to a public interest caveat. On that basis, we can justify the inclusion of other creatures—such as on the grounds of endangerment   —in the same way as elephants. This is the legal information and advice that I have received, and I wish to put it formally on the record.
In fact, it is arguable that the omission of other species makes the Government more susceptible to legal challenge, not less, as the Government have already recognised the need to protect other ivory-bearing species, but have chosen not to do that through this legislation. If Ministers are going to continue to push this argument, may I ask that a copy of the legal advice they have received is made available to Members in the House of Commons Library?
Despite the fact that the Opposition feel that these other ivory-bearing species could legally be incorporated in the Bill, if needed, we have, in the spirit in which this entire legislative process has been conducted, listened to the concerns set out by the Minister in Committee, and we have revised our original amendment into new clause 1 in order to address the concerns that the Government raised in Committee. New clause 1 would simply mandate the Government to introduce secondary legislation on other CITES ivory-bearing species within a 12-month timeframe. Given that the Government have said that they understand the merit of widening the scope of the measure to include other species, it should not be a problem for them to commit to doing so in the Bill. New clause 1 would allow a consultation if necessary, while at the same time ensuring that secondary legislation is introduced and that the issue cannot slip off the agenda indefinitely.
We cannot wait until those other species are in danger or until the problem has been displaced before taking action. We have the opportunity to take action today. Does the Minister agree that leaving out those species in the first place was an oversight, and does he recognise that other species, particularly the hippo, are at risk of being poached as an alternative to elephant ivory?
New clause 1 goes beyond vague promises and warm words of support. We have seen how a commitment to banning ivory has drifted in and out of consecutive Conservative manifestos and how Government commitments on animal welfare issues such as the banning of wild animals in circuses have been allowed to drop off the agenda. We must not allow the same thing to happen in this case.
New clause 2 seeks to focus minds and action on the international nature of the illegal wildlife trade. We simply cannot tackle the global trade in illegal ivory on our own. The illegal wildlife trade has grown rapidly in recent years and is now estimated to be the fourth largest transnational illegal trade, worth over £15 billion a year. The illegal wildlife trade drives corruption and has been linked to other forms of organised crime, such as arms, human trafficking and drugs. The effective tackling of this illegal trade requires international co-operation. In the spirit of the international wildlife crime conference that Britain will host in October, new clause 2 sets out a clear responsibility for the Secretary of State to provide to the House a report on cross-departmental efforts to tackle this trade and the poverty that drives it in the communities that are affected.

Hugo Swire: New clause 2 has some merit, but it seems that it simply requires the Secretary of State  to report within 12 months. It says nothing about an annual report on what the Government are doing to help to combat the trade and what targets have been achieved. Why have the Opposition alighted on a single one-off report?

Sue Hayman: The new clause was tabled after we looked at what has happened since China banned ivory in January. Everyone was very excited about that, and believed that it would have a swift impact on ivory poaching. The evidence before us shows that more than six months on, it has not had very much impact. Rather than sitting here being very pleased with ourselves for introducing an ivory Bill, which I am sure we will do, we need to make sure that what we produce is effective in the communities where ivory is being poached. The idea of having a report in 12 months was to see whether what we are doing is having more effect than the Chinese ban. If not, the Government would have an opportunity to review the legislation.

Hugo Swire: Indeed, the logic of what the hon. Lady says is that these things take time to have an impact. A one-off report in 12 months might not truly reflect the changes that the Government’s legislation will have in, say, two to three years. An annualised report is something worth looking at.

Sue Hayman: If the right hon. Gentleman would like an annualised report and would like to discuss with the other place how that can be pursued after he has supported our proposal, I am sure that that is something that can be considered.

Zac Goldsmith: Of course there is merit in studying whether or not these measures work, but new clause 2 asks a very narrow question. Ivory is just one of many illegally traded products. There are all kinds of forestry products, as well as pangolins—1 million a year are traded. Rhino horns are traded to the detriment of that species. The ban is just one of many hundreds of initiatives that tackle the illegal wildlife trade. Why focus on one of hundreds of products, and one strand among hundreds of strands of work that we need to tackle the illegal wildlife trade? It seems reductionist, and probably not the best use of money or time.

Sue Hayman: In the same spirit, surely the hon. Gentleman would support new clause 1, which expands the scope of species that are covered. We could say that the Government have a narrow focus in looking only at elephants.

Zac Goldsmith: I look forward to hearing the Minister speak, and to a commitment that the ban will extend to other species. My concern about new clause 1 is twofold. First, I am not a lawyer, but I share worries, based on what I have heard, that we might unsettle the Bill by making it susceptible to judicial challenge. Secondly, the new clause looks only at CITES species that bear ivory, but there are other species that bear ivory. The warthog would be decimated if it became the legal option for people who wanted ivory, and the mammoth is a concern. Yes, I know that the mammoth is extinct,  but it has become an enormous source of laundered ivory. There is a legitimate mammoth trade, as the hon. Lady knows, and it is used as an excuse or opportunity for smugglers to trade elephant ivory under that cover. That is a clumsy way of putting it, but it is a loophole that has been exploited mercilessly. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he makes the commitments that I am looking forward to, will make a commitment to extend the ban, subject to consultation, to all forms of ivory.

Sue Hayman: It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman did not serve on the Bill Committee, because he could have supported our amendment 12, which proposed much of what he has just said.
Looking at how we tackle the illegal trade effectively, hon. Members will agree that we need international co-operation, as I have said. In debate and in Committee, hon. Members have said that we need to look at how we work effectively with the Department for International Development in the communities where poaching takes place. Poverty and corruption drive the trade. We have seen in recent days a terrible example of that with the poaching of Bella, a 20-year-old white rhino with a young calf. Bella was dehorned a week before she was shot dead by poachers at Kragga Kamma game park in the Eastern Cape in an effort to make her less of a target. However, hunters sliced her face to extract the small amount of horn that remained. The grisly discovery of the mutilated carcase of a dehorned rhino, killed for less than one centimetre of horn stump, lying next to her calf underscores the depths of South Africa’s poaching problem. It also underscores the fact that poachers kill for very little ivory, which is why it is important to extend the scope of the Bill.
Will Travers, director of the Born Free Foundation, told the Bill Committee:
“In my view, there is a common linkage with our clear objectives in overseas development, which are to deal with poverty and to provide opportunity...If we are not investing in the protected areas where elephants and other species live, we are not doing a great service either to the species we wish to protect or to the people who live literally downstream from those protected areas.”––[Official Report, Ivory Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2018; c. 9, Q12.]
International leadership and commitment are needed from DEFRA. I sincerely hope that the Minister will agree to support new clause 2, which would make meaningful the commitment to international action on the illegal ivory trade.
Government amendments 3 and 4 bear an uncanny resemblance to amendment 12, which Labour tabled in Committee, as I mentioned. Labour does not seek to oppose the Government amendments, as it is proper and right that the Secretary of State should have the discretion to include additional species, whether they are CITES-listed or not, at a later date depending on the evidence at the time.
I would like to make clear the difference between Government amendments 3 and 4 and Labour’s new clause 1. They are entirely different and in no way contradict one another. Government amendments 3 and 4 seek to provide powers for the Secretary of State to add CITES and non-CITES listed species to the definition in future if the Secretary of State so wishes. The amendment does not compel or require the  Government to do so and it does not specify a timeframe. It is therefore important that both Government amendments 3 and 4, as well as new clause 1, are adopted today to protect the most at risk CITES species as a priority within the next 12 months, as  well as providing the Secretary of State with the discretionary powers to include species at an future time if necessary.
This House is united in its determination to clamp down on the ivory trade. Labour’s 2017 election manifesto made a clear commitment to a full ban on ivory sales and I welcome the Bill today. It is an important step forward in protecting elephants and starting to tackle this appalling trade. The Committee stage was conducted in a spirit of working hard and being constructive together. I recommend both Labour’s new clauses and the Government amendments to the House. We need to close any loopholes in the Bill that might further endanger the walrus, narwhal, sperm whale, killer whale and hippo. I have tried hard to work constructively with the Minister. I ask that he take our concerns and our new clauses very seriously. I urge the whole House to support Labour’s new clauses 1 and 2 today.

Simon Hoare: It was a pleasure to serve with the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) and her colleagues and with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the important Bill Committee. It is great to see the Bill on Report. Since before the days of Hannibal the elephant has been important, totemic and ritualistic in our psyche and in our history. We want to ensure that the elephant, and man’s relationship with that supremely powerful and totemic animal, has not just a present but a future.
From time to time, I toy with trying to win the lottery. If I did, one of the things I would do is take my children on safari in Africa to see, among other animals, elephants. My children are quite young, so I think to myself that I will do that in 10 or 12 years’ time when they are a bit older. I just hope that the elephants will still be there. That, of course, presupposes that I win the lottery. I fundamentally believe that the Bill will have an important role to play in helping to deter the trade, making it morally reprehensible to trade in ivory and to poach, and to act as a beacon of excellence for other countries to follow.
I do not particularly like to be tied into other agendas and the timetable of other agendas, but I have been entirely persuaded, in Committee and on Second Reading, by the comments and assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister from the Dispatch Box about the importance of getting the Bill through cleanly and swiftly to ensure it hits the statute book at an appropriate time and in a form whereby it can be cited at the important conference in autumn.
The hon. Member for Workington will know that I share entirely what she says, but she will not, I am sure, also be surprised to hear that I will vote against her new clauses. Clause 35, which we discussed at some length in Committee, is clearly able to deliver what the hon. Lady and many of us on the Government Benches seek. I take entirely her point and it is not contained in the Government amendments. One of the great joys of   being a Parliamentary Private Secretary, such as I am, is that one is not allowed to table in one’s own name amendments to proposed legislation or to sign such amendments. I still have concerns, however.
Clause 35(3) refers to animals or species only on the CITES list. CITES is clearly a recognised international forum that deserves a huge amount of respect and great weight must be placed on its findings. However, I say politely but with a certain degree of firmness to those on the Treasury Bench that we should not be restricted solely to species recognised by CITES. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who has led this debate in so many ways, alluded to the warthog. This seems an appropriate time to rest an argument on the wise words of Flanders and Swann, to whom one should always turn in moments of stress and anxiety. It is probably before your time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you might remember the song, “The Warthog (The Hog Beneath the Skin)”:
“The jungle was giving a party
A post hibernation ball”—
I’m not going to sing it—
“The ballroom was crowded with waltzing gazelles, gorillas and zebras and all.
But who is that animal almost in tears
Pretending to powder her nose?”—
it is not my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—
“A poor little warthog who sits by herself
In a pink satin dress with blue bows.
Again she is nobody’s choice and she sings in a sad little voice:
No one ever wants to court a warthog
Though a warthog does her best.”
I do not want to see us almost in tears as a result of a drafting error that restricts ourselves only to CITES. It may be that CITES does not respond to what I regrettably predict will be a fall in the warthog population, if that is the only form of ivory still able to be traded legally because it cannot be covered by the requirements of clause 35. I therefore urge my friends on the Treasury Bench to consider the small deletion of the word “only” in clause 35(3).
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, I too am not a lawyer—a fact that I usually rejoice in—but I suggest that the deletion of clause 35(6)(b),
“extant on the day on which this Act is passed”,
brings into the compass of the Bill mammoth. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we should be trying to endeavour to encourage across the world, not just here as a legislature, is the decommoditisation of ivory. The fact that it comes from a species that is extinct to my mind is immaterial, because one is still saying that it is fine to trade in it. My anxiety is that a perverse response, totally counter-intuitive to that which the Bill hopes to achieve, could be that the provisions expedite elephant poaching, because if the argument is that it is fine to trade in an extinct species, there could well be an impetus to drive the elephant to extinction merely to legitimise the trade in its ivory products.

Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman has invested a lot of thought into the decommoditisation of ivory, as though that would be the silver bullet. Does he think that it is the silver bullet or that other action is needed to combat ivory poaching?

Simon Hoare: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It would be a terrible fallacy if we as legislators fell into the trap of thinking that something will stop all because we make it illegal. The Bill sends a very clear signal and closes down an important market in the ivory trade. However, if the hon. Gentleman is pointing to the work that our troops can do through the Ministry of Defence, or the work that Department for International Development and other organs of the state can do to better educate, to help economies in the developing world to grow, to realise and maximise the value of safari-type tourism, and to help to train people and give them the skills to go out with confidence to combat those who seek to kill elephants and other species merely for their ivory, he is absolutely right and I agree with him entirely. The Bill of itself will not achieve our aim, but I am absolutely convinced that it will play an incredibly important part when viewed as part of the wider and more colourful mosaic of tools that we have at our disposal.

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to address the demand particularly in countries that on the surface adhere to the rules but allow trading below that to carry on and in some cases encourage it?

Simon Hoare: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point and he is absolutely right. From that position, notwithstanding the cited but not referenced legal advice that the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Workington, mentioned, I would argue that precisely because of the need to send a clear message to other countries who are either subject to or perceived to benefit from the ivory trade, the most important thing that we can do is have the legislation in a really advanced state to take to this important conference in the autumn as an example of best practice and what can be done in the legislative process.
New clause 2 is on the report of the international ivory market. This slightly segues into the point made by the hon. Member for—I am going to say Alyn and Deeside—

Mark Tami: That is right.

Simon Hoare: Well, there we are—my knowledge of north Wales Labour MPs is getting even better. This segues into the hon. Gentleman’s point. I would much prefer to see pressurised resources in DEFRA, the MOD and DFID, concentrated on deploying as much as we possibly can to arrest and frustrate the ivory trade and poaching, rather than the bureaucratic complexities that, in essence, underpin new clause 2 about having the report on the international ivory market. Apart from having a report to keep open a door or prop open a broken window, I am not entirely sure what the report of itself would do and what sits at the heart of the new clause.
Of course, I support the amendments proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

David Rutley: rose—

Simon Hoare: With trepidation but a certain degree of honour, I give way to my hon. Friend the Minister.

David Rutley: As always, my hon. Friend is very assiduous. I wonder whether he noticed today that we have announced that we intend to consult on extending the ban to include other ivory species, and we will seek to start the consultation process and gather evidence as soon as practicable or on Royal Assent. Does he not believe that that shows our clear commitment to taking action in this very important area?

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend has pointed to my effective oratorical default, which is that I never, ever write a speech. I scribble notes on bits of paper and then get terribly confused—sometimes it is a shame and sometimes it is a blessing. In concluding my remarks on new clause 1, I was going to say—again, this militates against the need for it—precisely the point that my hon. Friend made from the Dispatch Box. He and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have made incredibly clear their enthusiasm and appetite for expeditiously moving forward to include species such as the narwhal and others, which we are keen to see included.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) and I have an affection for the narwhal, which might even be described as an obsession. I think it is probably best to keep that to ourselves—we do not need to go into the whys and wherefores of it. However, not only have Ministers and the Secretary of State indicated the appetite to make full use of clause 35(4), but were there ever to be a change of Government—pray God that this is at such an interval that my hon. Friend and I will probably have hung up our boots—I rather get the impression that a Labour Government would also be as keen to exercise the scope of clause 35(4), so trying to put this in the Bill in a new clause is irrelevant.
In conclusion, I recognise the enthusiasm and determination that the DEFRA team have shown on this Bill. I also put on record my thanks for what I think is the unsung work of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom)—the current Leader of the House, if I have got her constituency wrong—who did so much work when she was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), because only due to circumstances beyond her control was she not able to bring to the point of delivery that which she had been involved in from the moment of conception. She should take enormous pride in the Bill, because it is something that is important for the House to do. Although there was some disagreement about pace and tempo during the Bill Committee and on Second Reading, the unanimity of view does credit to this place. Too often, it is seen through the rather narrow microcosm of Prime Minister’s questions, but when this place gets it, when it understands the need to do something, there is, I suggest, no finer example of the practice of politics. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to play a part, albeit a very small one, in bringing the Bill to this stage.

Anna Turley: I congratulate everybody who has helped to get this important Bill to this point, including the many campaigners and organisations who have pushed for it over the years, and I thank the civil servants and the Clerks who have  worked so hard and all those who gave their time to give evidence to the Bill Committee. It was a pleasure to be part of that Committee, and I echo the words of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare): it was Parliament at its best, working constructively and collaboratively across party lines to ensure that this groundbreaking Bill was as good as it could be.
The Bill matters deeply because the illegal wildlife trade has grown rapidly in recent years. It is now estimated to be the fourth-largest international illegal trade and worth over £15 billion per year. The illegal wildlife trade drives corruption, undermines the rule of law, threatens sustainability in developing countries and has been linked to other forms of organised crime, such as arms, drugs and human trafficking. The number of elephants in the wild has declined by almost a third in the last decade, and around 20,000 a year are still being slaughtered owing to the global demand for ivory—an average of around 55 a day.
There are now approximately 415,000 African elephants left. In the last decade, their numbers fell by about 111,000, mainly owing to poaching. While the UK is not one of the countries of most concern in terms of its contribution to the global illegal ivory trade, there is recent evidence that our legal ivory market is still being used to launder illegal ivory, and ivory is being shipped legally and illegally to Asian countries. TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, surveyed the UK ivory market in 2016 and found that while ivory sales had declined since 2004, the UK was still a net exporter of ivory. There was also some discrepancy in the numbers: the UK reported that only 17 raw tusks were exported to other countries, but importing countries reported 109 tusks that had come from the UK. UK ivory traders were also unclear on the laws around the legal ivory trade. The Bill is therefore vital and long overdue, and I am delighted to have been a member of the Committee and to be speaking on it today.
I want to focus my comments on two areas that I do not believe have been suitably progressed during the passage of the Bill. First, I will speak to new clause 1, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), and the issue of widening the scope of “ivory” to cover species besides elephants. I recognise the amendment the Secretary of State has brought forward, about which we will no doubt hear more, and which will allow the scope of the Bill to be widened in the future, but I cannot help feeling we have missed an historic opportunity to do so here and now.
As I mentioned in Committee, there is a phrase used by medical students: first, do no harm. It is something that we ought to abide by in this place when passing legislation. I have a real concern, backed up by evidence, that by limiting the Bill to elephant ivory, we may have a disproportionate impact on another species, as poachers and dealers look elsewhere to feed their markets. Just as I did in Committee, I wish to speak, in particular, about the noble hippopotamus—known, of course, as the river horse—and to support my hon. Friend’s comments about the hippo.
The number of hippos in the world has crashed by 95% in the last 30 years—that is inconceivable—and that is widely acknowledged to be a knock-on effect of the increasing restrictions on the trade in elephant  ivory. Since the convention on international trade in endangered species imposed the ban in 1990, 30,000 tonnes of hippo teeth have been exported from Africa. For example, a few years ago, in the Virunga national park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there were 29,000 hippos, but now there are just 1,300. The hippo is vulnerable and on the red list of threatened species, and there is deep concern that it is being poached and hunted for its teeth as loopholes are closed around elephant ivory.
In 2014, some 60 tonnes of hippo teeth were exported to Hong Kong from Africa and from there were sent on to European countries. If the purpose of the Bill is to close markets that are driving the trade, and given that there is clearly a strong integrated global trade in hippo teeth that has a huge effect on the species, it is vital that we take this opportunity to send out the message that we in this country do not believe that hippos should be killed or poached for their teeth and ensure that we do not, through the Bill, have a damaging impact on the hippopotamus.
I accept that the Government have tabled amendment 3 to allow them to widen the scope in the future, but I have not heard any arguments either in Committee or today that have convinced me that we cannot broaden the scope now. On the point about the conference in the autumn, if the Government were to accept our new clause today, or in the Lords, we would still hit that timetable—there would be no delay in the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington has clearly set out the legal position showing that the Government are on safe ground and that there would not be sufficient means for a challenge. We are missing a vital opportunity. The arguments about delays to the legislative process do not stack up. The Government should come on board and support our new clause. I sincerely hope that any delay in broadening the scope arising as a result of having to wait for secondary legislation will not have a devastating knock-on consequence for the hippo and other species.
I welcome the fact that the Government amendment does not limit the animals that may be covered in the future simply to those registered as “protected” in CITES. I believe that they were won over by the excellent representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made very powerfully in Committee, when she said that we should look at this through the prism not just of protecting endangered species but of our moral obligation. We ought to be driving out poaching and the hunting of animals for the use of their body parts because it is morally reprehensible, whether the animals are endangered or not. I am grateful that the Government have taken that on board.

Zac Goldsmith: I am taking a leap here, but I do not think that any Conservative will have disagreed with anything that the hon. Lady has said. It seems to me that the only real difference between the Opposition and the Government—and this is a question, not a statement—is a matter of process. The aspirations are almost identical. The Government’s commitment is to go further than new clause 1 by going beyond the CITES species, but on that there is no disagreement between the two parties. The only issue, really, is whether the Opposition are willing to trust the Government to honour the pledge that we have just heard from the  Minister, but that is it. This is not about the issue; it is a matter of trust and process. Does the hon. Lady agree with that?

Anna Turley: Absolutely. I think the principle of trust is important, and I hope we would support the Government on that, but for me this is about timing. The issue is not whether it will happen, but the fact that it could be six months or a year before the Bill is passed. In the meantime, especially if the Bill proceeds successfully and is widely heralded, there will be a great deal of awareness about the crackdown on the ivory trade in this country. What concerns me is the knock-on effect in the next six months to a year on the trade in hippo teeth, which could be a direct consequence of the Bill. I therefore do not want any delay caused by the wait for secondary legislation. In principle, however, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we are going in the same direction.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank my hon. Friend for her references to my contribution in Committee. Let me also express my admiration for her elephant-patterned dress.
On the question of whether another Bill will be introduced, is it not the case that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which does not normally handle an awful lot of legislation, has so much on its plate at the moment, what with the agriculture Bill, the fisheries Bill and so many other strategies—the need to consider agriculture subsidies, for instance—that the chances are that this will get pushed to the bottom of the pile if it is not dealt with soon?

Anna Turley: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point, and one that is close to my heart. My private Member’s Bill to increase the punishment for animal cruelty was published in December, but we are still waiting for it to come before this place. There is a huge backlog in legislation, and I think it is dangerous to wait.

Zac Goldsmith: I apologise for intervening again, but may I take up that last point? Subject to consultation—and it is inconceivable that those consulted would oppose the proposals; we have to assume that they would pass the test of public opinion—these changes could be introduced very quickly and easily by means of a statutory instrument. This does not require primary legislation; it would be a very simple procedure, and the measure would go through unopposed.

Anna Turley: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but, conversely, I do not understand what his problem is with our new clause. We want to make the change here and now, and I have heard no sustained or reasonable explanation of why we need to delay.

Zac Goldsmith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anna Turley: I will take one more intervention, but then I must make some progress.

Zac Goldsmith: I will not support the new clause because I think that the Government’s commitment goes further, and, fundamentally, I have no reason to disbelieve the promise that the Minister has just made.  The Government will consult on extending the ban, and I have no doubt that the British people will respond to that consultation properly and positively. The statutory instrument will then be introduced. There is no reason for any Conservative Member to question what I think has been an impeccable track record on the part of DEFRA over the last year.

Anna Turley: The hon. Gentleman is right—the principle of the Government’s amendment, which broadens the CITES endangered species definition, is important and we support it—but I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman cannot support both. They are not mutually exclusive. We would really like to press on with this today, and there does not seem to be any reason for hesitation—other than work and effort, I am afraid.
Finally, let me say something about resources. In Committee, I was shocked by the lack of resources to back up the Bill. The Border Force CITES team at Heathrow has only 10 members of staff, although it is currently dealing with more than 1,000 seizures a year. The police National Wildlife Crime Unit has only 12 members of staff, despite dealing with all forms of wildlife crime from deer poaching to thefts of birds’ eggs, and no funding has been allocated to it beyond 2020. I think it reckless and irresponsible for the Secretary of State to introduce the Bill without having secured or committed resources to ensure that it can be properly enforced. There is a danger that this important Bill will be rendered hollow and unenforceable, and I hope that the Government are working to address that and give us some funding commitments.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Lady has, of course, omitted the very serious commitment, in terms of personnel and funding, that we give through the British Army and anti-poacher training, in Africa and elsewhere. She must concede that.

Anna Turley: Absolutely, but that is a separate issue. I am talking about enforcement in this country. Thousands of cases a year pass through Heathrow, and the police must investigate every single item that is found in a suitcase. As we heard in Committee, there must be months and months of investigation of very complex cases of a cross-border and international nature, and that requires proper resources.
I hope that the Government have listened wholeheartedly to our recommendations, but I welcome the Bill. We have worked on it collaboratively and in strong partnership, and I think that there is little in it with which any Member can disagree. It is a landmark Bill, and I hope that it will have a significant impact on not only the elephant population, but many other species.

Owen Paterson: I congratulate the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Opposition and everyone who worked so hard in Committee to get the Bill this far. We are all under time pressure, as the shadow Minister said; it is vital that this ban is in law by the time we have the conference, so that we can regain the leadership we had on this huge international issue.
I listened carefully to the shadow Minister’s speech, and I am in complete agreement with the intention. In fact, I mentioned the advice we got from the Born Free  Foundation when I spoke on Second Reading, pointing out, importantly, the reduction in numbers. The hon. Lady cited the numbers; I have seen the figure of a reduction in hippo numbers of 25%, and she is absolutely right about what would happen if we only limit one type of ivory. Hippos spend a very happy life stationary; they are sitting targets in large pools of water. They have a very nice lazy time, but they would suffer terribly. That is just one species that would be hit, as I have mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has been vocal in his interventions so far and I congratulate him on all the work he has done in recent years. On the same day as Second Reading we wrote a joint letter to the Secretary of State, with a number of other Members, pointing out that the definition of ivory in the Bill as it stands is simply too narrow. Clause 35(1) says that
“‘ivory’ means ivory from the tusk or tooth of an elephant.”
We pointed out in our letter that we were worried about other species such as hippopotamus, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus as well as extinct species such as mammoth, which are being literally mined in Siberia by unscrupulous dealers. We also recommended, in very much the same sentiments as the hon. Lady has expressed, that we should name these ivory species, and possibly list them on—this was my phrase—the face of the Bill. So we wrote to the Secretary of State, and I am delighted that DEFRA has looked at this. I think that is what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve with her new clause 1.
I am not particularly fussed which of the mechanisms is used, either my idea of this being on the face of the Bill—for which we have not actually tabled an amendment—or the hon. Lady’s new clause 1, the downside of which is that it states:
“Within 12 months of the coming into force…the Secretary of State must lay a draft of an instrument”.
What we heard from the Minister just now is interesting, and I think we will hear from him again shortly. Apparently it is on the DEFRA website that what is now being proposed is that the consultation could begin immediately we get Royal Assent—it could even be on the same day. What I like about the new Government amendment 3 is that it goes much wider: we are not limited to CITES or a shortlist of species, which is what I was going to propose. Amendment 3 is better, as it is a much wider definition, and, as I understand it, it could go through faster. I have told this House on many occasions over the last 21 years that I am not a lawyer, but, as I understand it, without a formal consultation, this legislation could be prey to a legal challenge, whereas a statutory instrument, properly constituted, and after consultation and going through the human rights requirements, could probably be got through in about 12 weeks if it was pushed through. Therefore, it seems to me that we are all trying to achieve exactly the same aim, which is to seek to protect a number of other species that are not mentioned at the moment. Clause 35(1) is very narrowly drawn and is purely about elephants, and living elephants.
I am impressed by the arguments, therefore, and I hope we are going to hear from the Minister on this. He has had a go at me informally, and I appreciate his ringing me at home about this last weekend. I hope we will hear from him that the DEFRA lawyers have gone through this in some detail and that under his arrangement  we will scotch any chance of a legal challenge as it will go through the human rights requirements and the consultation will be absolutely clean. What is good and clever about it is that it is so wide that it encompasses the dead animal, the mammoth, which is a big advantage. So I will be strongly supporting the Government on this. As I said, I am in total agreement with the Opposition’s intentions. I think that what I and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park wrote is probably the least good proposal, and happily it has not been put down as an amendment.

Kerry McCarthy: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a whole list of animals that might be included, and we also had a full discussion about this in Committee. It was only when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds spoke to me this week that I realised that one species that had not been mentioned was the helmeted hornbill. I had no idea that there was a market in red ivory from the hornbill. Has that species come up in any of his considerations, and does he think that it should be put forward for protection as well? It is protected under CITES.

Owen Paterson: I am being told via a sedentary intervention that that is not ivory. This is an interesting issue, but surely the good point about Government amendment 3 is that it is very widely drafted, so that a lot of species and a lot of animals could be included. I think that that is a good thing. What the Opposition new clause is proposing, and what we were originally proposing in our letter, is actually narrower and less effective.
I shall sit down now, because it will be much more interesting for the House to hear what the Minister has to say, but this information is on the DEFRA website, and if we could get a statutory instrument out and get started on consulting on the day of Royal Assent, that would be the most rapid method. I think we all agree that we want to give the widest possible protection to the widest number of species, and that seems to be the right route to take.

Zac Goldsmith: I want to thank and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for having taken this issue from somewhere near the bottom of the agenda four years ago and catapulting it to the top at the first illegal wildlife trade conference in 2014. That was really seismic, and it moved the dial on this issue unlike anything that had gone before. Does he agree that the 2018 conference in October will be an opportunity to go further still, not just by demonstrating our own commitment but by getting other key countries—particularly Asian countries such as Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, as well as members of the European Union—to make the same commitment that we are making here in this House today? This needs to be a global challenge, not simply a British one.

Owen Paterson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. It would be invidious of me not to mention my two other Cabinet colleagues at the time. One is now the right hon. Lord Hague of Richmond, and when I came back from Lewa in Kenya, he was as sharp as a tack and immediately got the point of the problem. DEFRA and the Foreign Office worked extremely closely  to put the conference together. I also want to give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who was really helpful from the DFID point of view. She saw the necessity for long-term sustainable economic activity in these areas, where there is a real danger of the value of wildlife not being appreciated. The advantage that I saw in Lewa, which I touched on at Second Reading, is that having rangers and properly protected wildlife creates a virtuous circle by bringing stability to the cattle industry, where the locals have been poaching each other’s cattle for centuries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned the conference, and he was right to say that it is vital to get the Bill through in time for that. I went to the FCO a couple of days ago, and I was delighted to see the preparations for the conference. More than 70 countries have been asked so far, which is marvellous. I think we had 42 countries at the previous one. It is really important to get across how much co-operation there is between all sorts of countries that we could not possibly expect to be co-operating so closely. When I was in Moscow, the Minister there stressed how well the programmes with the Chinese Government were going on protecting the snow leopards in the Amur mountains. We got co-operation across the board at the conference, which was a unique event, and I very much hope that this autumn’s conference here will have a similar boost and a similar impact. However, we can only go to it and look people in the eye if we have got this legislation through.

Hugo Swire: I hope that I am not stating the obvious, but I just wondered whether my right hon. Friend agrees that a good place to start this best practice would be within the Commonwealth.

Owen Paterson: Absolutely. Commonwealth members made several helpful contributions at the conference, and they will be invited again. The Commonwealth is a good vehicle for this, because this is about stopping both supply and demand, mainly in Asian countries, and some of our Commonwealth colleagues could be helpful at both ends of the trade.
I really want to hear from the Minister but, based on what he has told me informally and from what I have seen on the DEFRA website, I will be supporting amendment 3, because it will deliver the fastest route to our aim. I think it would also be sensible for the Opposition, having listened to the debate and been convinced by the arguments, to withdraw their amendments so that we can get on to Third Reading.

Lisa Cameron: It is a privilege to speak once again on the Bill, which the Scottish National party welcomes. We also welcome Government amendments 1 and 2 to clause 6, and Government amendments 3 and 4 to clause 35.
We are working towards implementing stringent measures to protect and conserve populations of elephants and other endangered species for future generations. The survival of the species is the most important thing and must be realised, so the Bill must be as strong as possible. I thank members of the Bill Committee who worked together so consensually towards the same aim: protecting ivory-bearing species and populations of  elephants. We have the same aims and aspirations; this debate has just been about how we reach the final outcome that we all desire. The general public are absolutely behind the Bill, and we must take our lead from their good common decency and sense. The consultation received 70,000 responses, so we must act decisively in their name.
The SNP also supports new clause 1, which would require the Secretary of State to introduce a statutory instrument within 12 months of the Bill becoming law to extend its scope to include hippos, killer whales, narwhals, sperm whales and walruses. Such action is integral to affirming the UK’s commitment to stopping the trade of all inhumanely obtained ivory.
We heard compelling evidence in Committee about the unscrupulous nature of ivory poachers. They will stop at nothing, leaving no ivory-bearing species safe. They trade in death. They undermine poor and vulnerable communities in developing parts of the world, moving from species to species to make their money. Protecting elephants is critical, but the SNP believes that the Bill does not go far enough due to the possible impact on other species and further knock-on effects. Those other species also require protection from the actions of unscrupulous individuals.
Reports indicate that hippo teeth, which are also ivory, are being auctioned in Tanzania and that demand for ivory also poses a threat to Malawi’s hippos. Hippo teeth represent a cheaper and easier option. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, demand for them increased after the 1989 ban on the international trade of elephant ivory. I recently read that a killer whale that was beached in Vancouver—near where some of my family live—had its teeth removed by unscrupulous ivory thieves. It was an 18-year-old killer whale called J32 that had been nicknamed “Rhapsody”. Such people will go to any lengths.
Turning to narwhals—the sea unicorns—Queen Elizabeth I spent £10,000 on a narwhal tusk, which is the equivalent of around £1.5 million today. The average price today is between £3,000 and £12,000, and narwhals are considered to be near-threatened. It is important that we support new clause 1 to ensure that poachers do not move from species to species.
The SNP also supports new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before each House within 12 months of the Bill becoming law detailing the state of international ivory markets and the steps taken by the Department for International Development to reduce demand for ivory. That is extremely important, because we are in a race against time. We will need to know that the Bill is having the desired impact—and quickly—so that we can amend or adjust the processes in place to save the species we desire to save.
The race against time means we must work, via DFID, with the communities that are most affected. We must determine, through a whole-Government approach, to tackle this trade and to ensure that we do our utmost to protect populations. Jobs and livelihoods are integral to populations affected by poaching. There must be alternatives to poaching, because we heard in Committee that people living in poverty in such areas tend to be caught up in poaching activity just to feed  their family. If they have no alternative, there will be little for them to do other than to try to continue poaching unabated.
Through DFID, we must look to ensure that we leave no one behind, and that we protect jobs and livelihoods as alternatives for these communities. We must also work with rangers and conservation agents, who have a direct impact on tourism, to ensure that there are opportunities for growth and development in the countries affected.
SNP Members want the strongest Bill possible. We want to work consensually with Members on both sides of the House, we want to ensure there is a whole-Government approach and, most of all, we want to ensure that we proceed in a timely manner. The utmost goal of this legislation is not a conference at the end, but the survival of a species.
It is important that we come together to ensure that this happens for our children and grandchildren. My children visited the elephants two years ago. They still speak today about their experience of seeing baby elephants wandering. We want to ensure that that can continue and that this magnificent species continues to wander across our savannahs.
The 2015 SNP manifesto included a commitment to support further animal welfare measures with a global focus, including action to end the illegal ivory trade, so I commend new clauses 1 and 2 and the Government amendments to the House in order to achieve the most stringent legislation possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Just for guidance, may I say that if colleagues can stick to about seven minutes each, we will get everyone in? The Minister is yet to speak.

Ranil Jayawardena: I am pleased that the Bill has made progress in Committee, building on the Government’s proactive work. As I have said before, I am pleased not only because of my interest in this area—that was why I founded the all-party group on endangered species with Members on both sides of the House—but because, like Opposition Members, many Conservative Members were elected on a manifesto promise to tackle the international wildlife trade and to press for a total ban on ivory sales. That was in the first manifesto I stood on. It is a manifesto promise I intend to keep, and I wish to highlight the last point in that specific wording. While the Minister is to be commended for bringing forward this much-needed Bill, in an unrelentingly positive manner, to protect these strong, smart, gentle endangered animals from murder—that is what it is: some 20,000 elephants are murdered each year for their ivory—we must protect many, many more species.
As I said on Second Reading, clause 35 is unnecessarily narrow. I can accept that the explicit exemptions, such as those on portrait miniatures or musical instruments, are necessary, fair and proportionate, but an over-narrow definition of ivory is not. This is not just a technical matter; it is a matter of principle. It is not just about ensuring that the Bill covers every type of ivory and is extended to another category of item. It cuts to the fundamental principle of the ban: protecting endangered  species now. If all a poacher has to do to sell the ivory they have recently butchered from an elephant is to declare it as ivory from a hippopotamus or from a long-dead mammoth, that is simply not good enough. Members can be certain that those profiting from the illegal wildlife trade will know the loopholes inside out. Worse, as the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) set out, such an approach may lead to poachers targeting those other species—hippos, walruses, narwhals and others—perfectly legally so that they can then sell that ivory under this Bill, as it stands. In effect, poachers would target those species by default for extinction. I am sure none of those outcomes is the desired intention, which is why I am pleased that the Government seem to be moving in the right direction.
I do not raise these points to criticise Her Majesty’s Government. Quite the contrary: I absolutely commend the Minister for his commitment to action on this, and I believe he will seize the opportunity to do the right thing, particularly as Government amendments 3 and 4 suggest that the Government are listening and want to expand the Bill’s scope through secondary legislation. That is why I will support the Government’s amendments, if anyone was to oppose them—I am encouraged to hear that they seem to have universal support across the Chamber—but I have concerns about the shadow Minister’s new clause 1, given its unnecessarily narrow focus on CITES and the species with us today. The measure could result in those who wish to do these animals harm using the loophole of simply saying, “That is mammoth ivory.” I am sure that that is not the shadow Minister’s intention, however, and I welcome her support for Government amendments 3 and 4 as they are the way of delivering the change we want.
I encourage the Minister to bring forward the consultation as soon as possible after Royal Assent, as he has indicated already. I encourage him to make that consultation as wide as possible and to include as many species as the Government need to be aware of. I hope that the Government will then act as swiftly as possible to bring secondary legislation to this place at the appropriate time.

Graham Jones: I want to speak to new clause 2, although on new clause 1, and given the speech we just heard from the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), I must say that I entirely agree that we should broaden the species to which the Bill applies, because it is about saving our wildlife, planet and ecosystem. None of those things operates in isolation. Our ecosystem is holistic and we must protect it as one. I would therefore hope that any changes made by new clause 1 would make the provisions as broad as possible.
I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition and our shadow Front-Bench spokesperson have tabled new clause 2. I know that it has been brought forward with the notion of trying to gain cross-party support, however, because I do not think it goes far enough at all.
A year ago, when I had the fortune to meet Angolan MPs, I raised this issue with them. It is a case in point that while legislation to ban ivory was passed in 2016, those MPs had no idea that they had passed the legislation. When legislators do not know that they have passed legislation, we know we are starting off with a bit of a problem.
In 2018, poaching in Angola is as virulent as it was prior to the legislation. The rate of poaching has simply  continued. Action has been taken and poachers have been prosecuted in cases involving considerable amounts of ivory, but by the time they are caught, the elephant is unfortunately dead. The elephant population is, of course, declining. Figures from National Geographic suggest that before the civil war, in around 1975, there were 200,000 elephants in Angola, but there may be just 2,000 left. According to more accurate figures from the general elephant census, which was conducted in partnership with Elephants Without Borders, there were some 70,000 elephants in southern Angola before the war but there are now around 3,400. That is a colossal cull of this wonderful animal over 40 years. I stress that the issue affects many animals but, in the short time I have, I wish to concentrate on elephants.
According to Elephants Without Borders, in 2015, for every 10 live elephants that the census recorded, it found four carcases. That is incredible. Fifty-five elephants are being killed every day and the population is down by 111,000 in the past decade. The way in which they are killed paints a picture of what this cruel industry is about, how it operates and how poachers act with impunity. They use AK47s, and it requires many AK47 rounds to bring an animal down. We have all seen the horrific pictures of elephants that have not been killed, but are alive and suffering while their horns are hacked off. It is truly appalling.
The great elephant census did not just cover Angola. Between 2009 and 2016—just seven years—Tanzania has seen an elephant population decline of 60%, almost all of which is due to poaching. In the same seven-year period, Mozambique has seen a 48% fall in its elephant population. The National Academy of Sciences has said that 100,000 elephants were killed between 2010 and 2012. These statistics paint a picture of incredible carnage and an incredible reduction in elephant numbers. I, for one, am sad. We must take firmer action.
Elephants Without Borders has suggested that not only legislation is required. We must take protective action. The two must go hand in hand, but the legislation must be tough, and new clause 2 does not go far enough. We must do more. I welcome the fact that DFID staff are out in Kenya, providing some support for the protection of elephants. Perhaps that is the beginning of a future in which we protect the animals on this planet, along with the biology of the environment that we need to sustain the planet from which we draw life.
We need legislation, but we also need active protection. Legislating in this place simply does not go far enough; it is time for international laws and international action. It is time for the United Nations to step up and begin to put in place a framework that protects our planet and these animals. It is time that we not only pass legislation, but take direct action on protected areas. Instead of just providing armed forces for humanitarian purposes, it is about time that we and the United Nations provided forces for environmental purposes. The time has come for us, both as legislators and those active in the field, to take this issue seriously.
I finish by congratulating the British Army on what it is doing out in Kenya, but we need more of it. I support new clause 2 as a beginning, but it is the beginning of a long road, because a lot more needs to be done.

Kwasi Kwarteng: This is a very important debate. In listening to speeches from across  the House, I was struck by the fact that I had never seen the House so united in terms of the purpose and seriousness of this legislation. The real differences—if there are differences—are about the manner of dealing with this and how we get the best results. That is very encouraging.
If one were to look at the number of elephants, one would be truly horrified. There were something like  1.2 million in 1980. Today, from the figures that I saw, there are a little over 400,000. Over 38 years, we have seen a two-thirds reduction in the number of wild elephants, so the species is undoubtedly in danger.
As a consequence, one can see why the Government have come up with this legislation. Initially, it was a very narrowly focused Bill, essentially designed to stop the trade in ivory with respect to elephants and the killing of elephants by poachers. One can understand exactly what the narrow scope of this legislation was. It was right for the people who have been campaigning on this issue to suggest that the narrow focus on elephants should be widened. Obviously, ivory comes from a range of sources. People have talked about mammoths and the teeth of hippopotamuses. It was inevitable that the legislation as drafted would be perhaps attacked or scrutinised on the basis that the focus was too narrow. I fully understand that.
What has happened in the past couple of days is that the Front-Bench team has listened to the debates and to the various representations. I saw on Twitter—I do not use Twitter very much, by the way—that the Environment Secretary has suggested that the next phase should be a much wider consultation than that proposed in new clause 1 by Opposition Front Benchers. That must be the right approach because, under the new clause, as Members have mentioned, mammoths are not included. We know that the way people claim that bits of ivory come from mammoths hides a multitude of sins and a great deal of criminality. That is another issue that is often overlooked in this debate—it has been mentioned once or twice.
The communities in which elephant poaching takes place, and the people who are driving this trade, are often linked with organised crime and with other very unsavoury elements in the countries of Africa in which the elephant and ivory are found. This has been going on for decades. One need only read accounts from Stanley in the 19th century to see how poachers—mass murderers, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) suggested—have been perpetrating these crimes for decades. It has to stop. The reason that this is an interesting and important piece of legislation is that it marks, I think, the first time, or one of the first times, that a western country—or certainly an advanced economic country—has taken this issue very seriously.
As we go forward, after the international conference at the beginning of October, we will have to be even more focused and even more rigorous in our approach to the ivory trade. As people have observed, just banning the ivory trade with respect to the elephant will not be good enough. We have to take a holistic approach. We cannot simply say that ivory from the elephant should be banned and not legislate for other animals and other sources of ivory. The broader approach is obviously the best one, but legislation is difficult in any broad approach. We have to get the right terms and the right drafting. I am not sure that new clause 1 is necessarily the best way  of trying to address this problem, which is why I will vote against it if it is pressed to a Division. I think that Government amendments 3 and 4 are a bit broader and more flexible. As we have discovered today, there have been later announcements suggesting that a broader approach—even broader than that proposed in new clause 1—is for the best.
It is a real credit to this House that something as sensitive as this Bill has brought forward a wide, courteous and informed debate. It is a real honour to be able to participate in the passage of this legislation.

Liz Twist: It is a great privilege to speak in this debate, which is of so much interest to many of our constituents, right across the UK. I would like to talk about four things. I will speak in support of new clauses 1 and 2, but first I will refer to a couple of other issues that we discussed at some length in Committee. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s response regarding those issues, but they will not be fresh ones to him; this is well-trodden ground.
The first issue is that of cyber-security. This is an important matter, as has been acknowledged. Much illegal trading is done over the internet. In Committee, we discussed the need for proper measures to deal with that and heard about the difficulties in tracing that. Does the Minister have anything to say on that? If we are to make this legislation effective, it is important that we deal with the issue of cyber-security and cyber-trade.
The second issue is that of enforcement, which we also discussed in Committee. When taking evidence, we heard from Inspector Lou Hubble—head of the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit—who spoke particularly about cyber-security. She saw the need for additional resources to deal with the cyber-trade in ivory. Goods that are often presented not as ivory, but as bovine, bone or other sources are really difficult to track down. I wonder whether the Minister has anything to say about that.
Let me turn to new clause 1. It seems that we all agree that we need to extend the legislation to include other sources of ivory. We are all concerned that, if we ban elephant ivory and strengthen the measures against that, we may displace the trade and find that other species are affected. That is why I am keen, as are other colleagues, that we broaden the description of ivory in the Bill. I heard the Minister saying that an announcement had been made on this, and it is good to see that there is change and movement in this area—we all agree that that is important—but I still support new clause 1. Will the Government consider going that bit further and supporting the new clause?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Lady talks about going a bit further. Surely the whole point is that what the Government are proposing goes further than the Opposition’s new clause.

Liz Twist: We are keen to see that action is taken now and not deferred. From our perspective, new clause 1 would improve and strengthen the Bill.
New clause 2, which is also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, calls for a report on the ivory trade in 12 months’ time. It is important  that we have a mechanism for reviewing how the Bill is operating in practice within a period of a year, so that we can ensure that it is doing what we want it to do: reduce the slaughter of endangered species and other species covered by the Bill. It is also important that we ensure we can take steps to strengthen the legislation in the future if that is necessary, so I support new clause 2.

Robert Courts: We have had an important discussion of this Bill over the past few weeks. It has been a great honour to speak on something that is so important to so many of my constituents. It has also been very good to see how the House works very constructively together on occasions where there are particularly important and historic matters for us to discuss, as in this case. I am very grateful to the Government for listening so constructively to many of the points that I have made, some on behalf of my constituents and some on my own reading of the Bill, and for answering a great many of them. I will address those in the course of my brief comments.
I do not support new clause 1 because I think the Government have proposed a better way of doing this. I say that for two reasons. They have been covered already but bear repeating. The first is the fact that the Government amendment goes further. New clause 1 deals only with CITES-listed species. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) rightly raised a concern that we all have—I raised it on Second Reading—about species displacement, for want of a better phrase. The new clause, if anything, makes that more likely because it does not cover species that are not on the CITES list, such as the warthog. We need to ensure that we can go further. There is much more freedom in the Government’s approach, which is to add species whether they are endangered or not and whether they are extant or extinct. Their amendment will also cover the mammoth, which, as we have heard, is being mined, and closes a loophole whereby mammoth ivory can be passed off as elephant ivory. It is a much better way of doing this because it goes further.
Secondly, the Government’s amendment goes faster because we can deal with the matter by secondary legislation. I entirely understand what the Opposition are trying to do through new clause 1, but the big, overriding problem is the procedural one. If a challenge is raised to the primary legislation on the human rights ground, we may run into difficulty on the whole Act, and that would be a great shame. I have thought very hard about this. As a lawyer, I am naturally of the mind that I do not like legislation that is rushed through, because rushed laws are often bad laws. I would instinctively prefer that we took more time and got it right. In this case, however, there is very much a need to move quickly, given that the conference is coming up, and given all the heartbreaking stories that we have heard today and throughout the Bill’s passage, including during the evidence session.
It is very important that we make it clear that the ivory trade is no longer acceptable. It is also very important that we make it clear that Britain is a world leader on this. We have heard about the great work that is being done by the Army—I pay tribute to that—and  through DFID. We can look at doing a lot more to expand that work. I very much welcome that.
For those reasons, we need to get this Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible, despite the fact that that goes against my natural instinct whereby I prefer to slow things down and take more time to make sure that there is not a hiccup further along the line. I am sensitive to the concern about everything being pushed into the long grass and the further expansion never happening, but I am very encouraged by today’s announcement by the Secretary of State that he will now be consulting on this. It seems to me that the Government have approached this in entirely the right way.
I have had a number of concerns about the Bill as it has gone through. Constituents have raised concerns with regard to the antique trade and those have been answered. I am grateful to the Minister for doing so, in full, and at relatively short notice. I had some concerns about the definitions aspect of clause 35. The Government’s amendments deal with those concerns because they mean that we do not have to worry about a particular species once the secondary legislation has been brought in to expand the species list further.
We can now move forward quickly with legislation that sets a positive, leading path for Britain as a nation. I wholeheartedly welcome that. I thank the Government very much for listening to all of us who have expressed concerns and for answering those concerns. I very much welcome the Bill and the Government’s amendments to it.

Alex Sobel: I spent three days on the Public Bill Committee carrying out detailed scrutiny. Although we did not always agree on the detail, I valued all the contributions from Committee members, who clearly believed strongly in eradicating the global ivory trade. We have a further opportunity today to make this a better Bill.
I want to start by raising a question that I asked the Minister in Committee, but which he might answer differently today. We had a detailed discussion about musical instruments and the rule that if less than 20% of an antique musical instrument is ivory, it can be sold. We heard from the Musicians Union that many retired musicians sell their instrument collection because it is not an industry in which people have a pension. I raised the issue of guitar picks made from mammoth ivory. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that they would be exempt because they are made from mammoth ivory. However, with amendment 3, there is a potential for mammoth ivory to be covered by the Bill. That changes the status of those guitar picks. I wonder whether the Minister will give a new response to that question today.
However, that is not the substantive part of my speech. I am in favour of the new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and in particular new clause 1. I will restrict my comments to the protection of other horned animals, and in particular the monodon monoceros, more commonly known as the narwhal, as I did in Committee. I do not have time to go into depth on the hippo, killer whale, sperm whale, walrus or warthog.
After returning home from the Committee, on which I served for three days, I was asked at the dinner table by  my children what I had done that week in Parliament, and I said, “Have you heard of the narwhal?” My 10-year-old son immediately broke into song. Following the example of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I will allow Members to hear the narwhal song:
“Narwhals, narwhals, swimming in the ocean
Causing a commotion coz they are so awesome”.
It goes on:
“Like an underwater unicorn
They’ve got a kick-ass facial horn
They’re the Jedi of the sea.”
Who could disagree with that?
If Members were not aware of the narwhal, I am sure they are now fully clued up and join every 10-year-old in the land who has impeccable knowledge of the narwhal. That knowledge is not new, however. Narwhals were known as sea unicorns for many centuries before exploration of the Arctic, and their tusks were one of the most valuable commodities in pre-industrial revolution Britain. Queen Elizabeth I is said to have spent £10,000—equivalent to £1.5 million today—on a narwhal tusk, which was placed with the Crown jewels.
Although narwhal horns are no longer so valuable, they are valued at between £3,000 and £12,000, and a double tusk can fetch as much as £25,000. The International Union for Conservation of Nature considers narwhal hunting still to be a major issue. In Canada and Greenland, narwhal hunting is still permitted, and between 2007 and 2011 an average of 979 narwhals were hunted a year. The Inuit as a native tribe have hunted narwhal for centuries, using them as a source of both food and income. In addition to the global trade in tusks and teeth, a Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society study found that shops in Japan were selling ground narwhal tusk as a tonic to treat fever. Shop counter prices for that medicine varied from $540 to $929 for 100 grams. Numerous reports have been produced, and there is an evidence base from non-governmental organisations.
CITES, which we have heard much about today, says that the main threats to the narwhal are hunting and climate change. The majority of narwhals live in and around Greenland’s territorial waters. Export of narwhal products was banned in Greenland in 2006, but narwhal products are legally traded within Greenland. Only subsistence hunting should take place. CITES says that there is a significant trade in narwhal tusks and parts, but not sufficient data to track it. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society is concerned that the hunting of narwhal has already become unsustainable. Narwhals have been over-harvested in Canada and Greenland. The society said:
“The annual hunting in western Greenland...significantly exceeded the quotas recommended by those scientific bodies of regional and international organisations charged with narwhal management.”
Laws in Greenland are being broken. Surely we should align our laws with theirs.
I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that the Inuit people are permitted to sell narwhal derivatives, including the horn, within the European Union. On one Canadian website I could have ordered a narwhal tusk from my desk here in Parliament for around $70 an inch that could be legally sent to the European Union. There are restrictions on what can be imported without permits and penalties for contravening import rules. I thank the  Minister for his letter in which he outlined the restrictions on imports from Greenland, which I deem sufficient, but he does not mention Canada, where restrictions are not so tight. I want to repeat what I asked him in Committee: will he clarify his views on narwhal horn trade from Canada?
As I have said, narwhals are also affected by climate change. While I understand the need for haste with elephants, narwhals face more than one threat, so it is important to include narwhals in the scope of the Bill, rather than for this to be covered under clause 35. Why wait when action can be taken in the Bill today?

Hugo Swire: I will speak briefly because time is marching on, and I did not have the privilege of serving on what I believe must have been a fascinating Public Bill Committee. Coming to this quite new, I urge the Opposition to drop their proposal to push new clause 1, which I do not think the Government are supporting. I completely understand where they are coming from, and had the Government not come up with their latest proposal, I would in fact have supported new clause 1. However, I believe the Government’s proposal trumps what the Opposition are suggesting. It is unfortunate, when we are trying to send a unified message to those in the world who are watching these deliberations, that there is or is perceived to be some artificial division between us, when I do not think there really is one. I therefore urge the Opposition to look again at withdrawing new clause 1.
It is important to get the Bill through without the threat of judicial review or—I am not a lawyer—any other kind of legal challenge. We must aim for the wildlife conference in October, and it is absolutely critical that we enable the Bill to be passed before then. At the wildlife conference, which is designed to protect the elephant, I hope, as a former Minister for Asia, that we will cover Indian elephants, because we tend to concentrate more on Africa than elsewhere. I saw a programme the other day about what is happening to elephants because of logging: there is no use for them, and they are therefore abused, killed or whatever. I hope that the wildlife conference, rather than just discussing the issue of elephants being killed for their ivory, also looks more holistically, as it were, at the role of an elephant in such communities and at how we can better support them.
As I say, I have come to this quite late, but I believe there are still outstanding issues. I am sure those issues will be addressed in tremendous detail in the other place, not least the subject of compensation for some collectors, the measures on antiques and the proposals put forward by the antiques trade, which I think need to be looked at again, as well as the charges to exemption certificates. I am sure such points have been well articulated in Committee, and I have absolutely no doubt that they will be looked at more closely again in the other place; the point of the other place is to look at such issues in great detail.
I believe the principle of what the Government are seeking with the Bill is absolutely right. It is one of those rare occasions when the House is unified on something that will have huge popularity well beyond the Chamber.

Owen Paterson: Am I right to say, as a summary of the position of those involved in the antiques trade, that  they find that the Bill is tough but fair, and that they would not like it tightened up any further? For speed, should we advise those in the other place not to spend too much time changing the Bill? Speed is of the essence in getting it through before the conference.

Hugo Swire: Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend. I would say that there are legitimate concerns that still need flushing out, but I do not think anything should be done that will prevent the passage of the Bill in time for the wildlife conference. There are genuine concerns about how tight the legislation is in some respects, and about how people may be inadvertently affected. I believe that legislation is only as good as the thought that is given to it, and there is nothing worse than implementing bad legislation. The legislation has to stand the test of time, and I believe the Government are trying to achieve that. I am sure that any serious points raised in the other place will be addressed suitably, but my right hon. Friend is, as usual, absolutely right that we must do nothing to prevent the swift passage of what is, in most respects, an excellent Bill.

David Rutley: This has been another outstanding debate on a very important subject, and I am very grateful for all the contributions that have been made.
On Second Reading, I was heartened to hear the support from all parties for the Bill. I thank all the Committee members for their important contributions on this issue, and for the suggestions on how we can refine the Bill. Progress has been swift, and it is crucial that we continue that pace of progress on the Bill, as has been set out in numerous speeches.
I would like to give a warm welcome back to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). As always, the Department will benefit from her keen intellect and boundless energy in moving forward with so many important initiatives, of which this Bill is not the least. It is good that she is in her place on the Front Bench today.
We have not really discussed the intention of Government amendments 1 and 2, which seek to provide a definition of a pre-1918 portrait miniature for the purpose of the exemption in clause 6. The amendments adds a size restriction to the definition so that portraits with a 320 sq cm surface area qualify for exemption. That is the maximum area of the visible surface of the ivory “canvas”, irrespective of the size of the frame. In Committee, Emma Rutherford, a representative of Philip Mould & Company, who is an expert on portrait miniatures gave evidence on how the exemption for portrait miniatures could be refined to add a size limit. The Government listened to that expert evidence and to views expressed in Committee and have introduced proposals that set maximum dimensions for portrait miniatures. We have discussed this, but we have chosen to exempt portrait miniatures because the value of these popular items is due not to their ivory content but to their historical importance, the delicate painting and their luminosity.
Let me now move on to important subjects that have been discussed at length today. We should focus our attention on Government amendments 3 and 4 and discuss matters raised in debate. I shall then come on to  discuss new clause 1. As has been said, amendments 3 and 4 will extend the power to make secondary legislation so that the definition of ivory could include that from any ivory-bearing species.
The hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), in a characteristically considered contribution, asked whether the focus on elephants was initially an oversight. Non-governmental organisations, particularly during the evidence session, underlined the need to focus on elephants as an urgent priority. There was no oversight—there was a clear focus to start with—but that is not to say that we should not move on and look at other species.
We have heard passionate speeches expressing concerns about other species, from the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) about hippos, and from the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). I do not think anyone will forget the speech by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and his legendary narwhal song. We will have to find the words and start humming them in the bath, or something.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading, it is important that, as a result of this ban, the trade in ivory does not move to other species. That is why we included a power in clause 35(3) to allow other ivory-bearing species listed under CITES to be brought into the scope of the ban.

Robert Courts: May I repeat my thanks to the Minister for listening to the concerns that I have expressed about that provision in particular? Does he agree that the key point is that we need to move quickly to protect elephants, but after that we need maximum flexibility so that the Government can protect other species, whatever they are, as and when required?

David Rutley: My hon. Friend has been consistent throughout the process about the need to push forward, as have many colleagues on both sides of the House. Absolutely—we need pace, and I will come on to how we will ensure that we move forward as quickly as possible in the weeks and months ahead.

Hugo Swire: When my hon. Friend begins to explain why the Government’s proposals are better than Opposition new clause 1, will he provide the House with evidence such as potential legal challenges or judicial review that has led the Government to decide that this is a better way to proceed?

David Rutley: Indeed I will. My right hon. Friend has made an important point. Of course, we want to move fast, but we want whatever legislation we introduce to be compliant. We want to make sure that it is effective and enforceable legislation, and I will come on to explain more about that.
We have listened carefully to the views put forward by expert witnesses in Committee and by Members on both sides of the House, and we have made it clear that we should not wait for ivory species to become endangered before we can take action. The amendments will therefore allow us to prohibit dealings in ivory from CITES species, as is currently the case under the existing drafting of clause 35 and, additionally, any other ivory-bearing animal or species, including those that are endangered—for example, warthogs, my favourite animal.

Simon Hoare: Hear, hear.

David Rutley: Quite right too. The amendments also cover extinct species, such as mammoths. We believe that extending clause 35 to allow warthogs to be brought into the scope of the ban is important due to the risk of displacement. That has been talked about by several people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). We also recognise that mammoth ivory is sufficiently similar to elephant ivory that its continued sale could perpetuate the demand for elephant ivory.
I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), of warthog fame, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham)—we will not forget her contributions in Committee on mammoths—for their determined commitment to these species. The Government are clear that we should work together for the Bill to move swiftly through Parliament and that we should not allow the Bill to be derailed. Quick passage is important as in October the Government are hosting the fourth Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference, referred to by Members on both sides of the House, at which we will bring together global leaders on this issue. The conference will build on previous efforts, address the underlying systemic issues that facilitate the illegal wildlife trade, and demonstrate a step-change in the fight against this criminal trade. Our aim is to make significant progress with the Bill before the conference.

Henry Smith: It was a great privilege to serve on the Bill Committee. Britain’s global leadership on this issue is absolutely essential. Does the Minister agree that the strong message we are sending out by passing the Bill in a timely manner and widening the scope to other species, will lead to change in countries across the world?

David Rutley: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution in Committee. He makes an important point. We want to highlight our commitment to tackling illegal wildlife trade. The Bill, and the extension we are talking about today through the consultation, will be important in sending out a clear signal to other countries, and not least the EU as it looks at its own ban.
As referenced on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website, the Government are clear that introducing protections for other ivory-bearing species is important. That is why we announced today our intention to consult on proposals to extend the ban to other ivory-bearing species on or as soon as practicable after Royal Assent.

Ranil Jayawardena: I was not on the Bill Committee, but I have been following the Bill closely, as have other members of the all-party group on endangered species. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the consultation would allow the Government to move further and faster than would have been possible under new clause 1?

David Rutley: Absolutely. It is our intention to move further. We are all agreed on that. As I will set out, we believe categorically that this will be faster. I think that that is the sort of speed people want to see as we move forward in the weeks ahead.

Simon Hoare: What capacity is there within DEFRA post conference—I appreciate it is currently fantastically busy—if other countries want to dip into the collective expertise of both Ministers and officials on how to deliver and devise this sort of legislation? Who will be available? We should be a centre of excellence and a resource for information and knowledge.

David Rutley: That is another excellent point. DEFRA officials work very closely with their counterparts in other countries. The conference in October will be a perfect opportunity to bring parties together. If further co-operation is required they will be ready to do that, but there is important work to do in the UK as well.
The Government want to ensure that if in future we decide to extend the scope of the ban, any legislation which applies to ivory-bearing animals or species is robust, proportionate, defensible, enforceable and, importantly, compliant with the European convention on human rights. This means that we will ensure that we gather and analyse evidence on the market for ivory from the other species. We therefore think that it is vital to consult on any proposals and gather views and evidence from stakeholders and the public. That would support an analysis that will focus on the impact of the measures—

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Rutley: I will.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Could my hon. Friend give the House any indication on timing for the consultation process?

David Rutley: As I said in the DEFRA announcement—I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to underline this—the consultation would start on or as soon as practicable after Royal Assent. The commencement of the Bill will be around six months afterwards. Importantly, the consultation will take place at the point of or close to—as soon as practicable—Royal Assent. We will then move forward with the consultation and, assuming that the evidence shows that it is right to put forward the statutory instrument and include certain species that we have talked about, we can then move forward on a quicker timescale than has been set out—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, I heard the hon. Member for Workington suggesting that we do it straightaway, which is a lovely thought and I understand her intention. However, the key thing that I am trying to stress is pace. Let us make sure that the Bill is compliant as well. I say gently to Opposition Members—I know that they are committed to pressing the new clause to a vote—that we want to make sure that the Bill is compliant, and given the focus and commitment that we have all given to the Bill, it is not right for there to be any risk, not just to the future of the delegated powers, but to the Bill as a whole by putting such provisions in it. That is what I ask Members to consider as we move to the vote.
We have already talked about new clause 1, but let me just add further weight to the arguments around it. It is clear that this new clause will place the Secretary of State under a duty to lay an affirmative procedure within 12 months of clause 35 coming into force. It would  extend the prohibition on dealing elephant ivory to ivory from CITES-listed species, so it does not go as far as the approach that the Government have set out.
As I said, the Government intend to consult on the extension of the ban and to conduct analysis of the impact that this may have on individuals and business. The new clause, however, presupposes or prejudges the outcome of that important work and would remove the opportunity for the public to provide evidence. It would oblige the Government to extend the prohibition to CITES species, even if the evidence does not support it. For some or all of the species listed in the new clause, that could mean that the regulations may not be compliant with the European convention on human rights and could be challenged on that basis. Given that explanation, I very much hope that in her concluding remarks the hon. Member for Workington will consider withdrawing her new clause.
During the debate, a number of other issues have been raised and I will turn briefly to some of them. The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) has made points about resources and cyber-security. I assure her that this is obviously a key area of focus and priority for the Government. The National Wildlife Crime Unit and Border Force do a fantastic job and we are committed to making sure that they have the resources to take this work forward. Of course, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, the regulator, will have additional resources, and working together with the enforcement agencies, will ensure that the ban is enforceable and is done so well.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) made the point about plectrums. If they are made of mammoth and assuming that the ban extends to mammoths, they would be prohibited, but clearly, they can still be used. They can be passed on and bequeathed; they just cannot be sold commercially. He makes an excellent point about narwhals. We have exchanged correspondence and we encourage other nations to take such commitments seriously. I will gladly meet him separately to talk about Canada.
The hon. Member for Workington talked about the need for a report. We talked about this in Committee at great length. I understand why she wants a report, but the Government do not believe it to be their job to produce one, because other organisations can do so more independently, and of course there would be a cost involved as well. I therefore ask her not to press her new clause 2. With that, I thank hon. Members for their contributions on Report.

Sue Hayman: We have had an excellent debate this afternoon, and it is great that hon. Members right across the House have welcomed and supported this important Bill. I thank the Minister for our constructive discussions in Committee and today and warmly welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), to her place.
I take issue with what some hon. Members have said about Government amendments 3 and 4 meaning that new clause 1 is not required. Our new clause would amend clause 35(1), whereas the Government amendments amend subsections (2) and (3), so they are not mutually  exclusive. If we are to make the Bill as strong as it can be today and achieve as much as we can, I see no reason why the House cannot support both new clause 1 and the Government amendments. We would then today have the strongest Bill possible. I am a little disappointed, therefore, that the Government do not want to support the new clause.

Robert Courts: A Bill that is open to challenge is not a strong Bill. Is that not the fundamental problem with the hon. Lady’s argument?

Sue Hayman: I will come to that point, but I am aware that I only have a minute and half left.
Having made those comments, I strongly welcome the Minister’s commitment to seek to start a consultation process on widening the scope of the ban to other species if the House does not support the new clause today. The Opposition have pushed strongly for this right from the beginning, and I welcome the fact that he has listened to us. On the issue the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) raised, I talked about the consultation in Committee, and I must again draw Members’ attention to the fact that I am an associate of the Consultation Institute. I have taken further advice from the institute, and it has reiterated that the consultation could be carried out both swiftly and efficiently as a supplementary consultation without giving rise to any issues of legal challenge. It is happy to support the Government in achieving a very solid consultation. None of us in the House wants to see any legal challenges to the Bill. If the Minister would like me to put him in touch with the institute—if he thinks that would help—I would be more than happy to do so. With that, I ask the House to support new clause 1.
Two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 256, Noes 305.

Question accordingly negatived.
New Clause 2

Report on the international ivory market

“(1) Within 12 months of section 1 of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before each House of Parliament a report on the international ivory market.
(2) The report must as far as practicable analyse the impact of this Act on the demand for ivory in the United Kingdom and in other countries.
(3) The report must consider—
(a) the impact on nations or communities that generate income from ivory of—
(i) the provisions of this Act, and
(ii) international agreements related to the ivory trade,
(b) the work of the Department for International Development in—
(i) reducing the global demand for ivory, and
(ii) mitigating any negative impact of the provisions of this Act on nations or communities that generate an income from ivory.”—(Sue Hayman.)
This new clause would require a report to be laid before each House of Parliament on the international ivory market, including how the Department for International Development is working to reduce global demand for ivory.
Brought up,
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The House divided:
Ayes 262, Noes 306.

Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 6

Pre-1918 portrait miniatures

Amendments made: 1,page5,line4, after “miniature” insert
“with a surface area of no more than 320 cm²”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.
Amendment 2,page5,line5, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (1) (a) the ‘surface area’ of a portrait miniature does not include any part consisting of or covered by a frame.”—(David Rutley.)
Amendment 1 and this amendment impose a size restriction on the items that can qualify for exemption as portrait miniatures, so that for example anything larger than 20 cm by 16 cm will not qualify. The size restriction applies to the visible surface area of the picture itself.
Clause 35

Meaning of “ivory”

Amendments made: 3,page21,line1, at end insert
“so as to include ivory from an animal or species (whether extant or not) that is not for the time being covered by that subsection”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 4.
Amendment 4, page 21, line 2, leave out subsection (3).—(David Rutley.)
The effect of Amendment 3 and this amendment is that regulations amending Clause 35(1) will be able to add ivory from any species of animal, including those that are not currently endangered and those that are extinct.
Third Reading
Queen’s consent signified.

David Rutley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
What a pleasure it is to move the Third Reading motion for this important Bill. It is a simple but vital piece of legislation with a clear purpose: to help save one of the world’s most magnificent animals, the elephant, from the brink of extinction at the hands of ruthless ivory poachers. The ban on the sale of elephant ivory items of all ages, with only limited exemptions, will be  the strongest in Europe and among the strongest in the world. The introduction of the Bill has reaffirmed the UK’s global leadership on this critical issue, and reflects our commitment to making the abhorrent trade in ivory a thing of the past. By seeking to ensure that ivory is never seen by the poachers as a commodity for financial gain or by potential customers as a status symbol, we will protect elephants for future generations.
The Bill has been improved today by amendments made on Report that took account of the evidence put forward by expert witnesses in Committee. This is my first time taking a Bill through the House as a Minister, and I am grateful for the positive way in which Members have engaged with it as it has progressed; I hope that that spirit will continue. We can all be rightly proud of the Bill. Let me take this opportunity to thank all the non-governmental organisations, the museums, the antiques sector and the enforcement bodies for their contributions and written evidence taken and received in Committee evidence sessions.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The Minister mentioned museums. On Second Reading, I raised the question of Northumbrian pipes made since 1975 using CITES-approved ivory. I understand that in Committee, despite these pipes’ unique and beautiful nature, it proved impossible to give a specific exemption for pipes made since 1975, but will the Minister meet me to discuss how we might find a way to use the local community or to set up some sort of fund, so that these pipes, which are owned by families, will not be lost to the musical traditions of Northumberland and will find a repository that can be passed on to future generations?

David Rutley: That issue was also raised by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). My hon. Friend is a formidable local champion and I will of course meet her to discuss how the Government can look into ways to continue to keep that rich part of her community’s heritage very much alive.

Dominic Grieve: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have not involved myself in the passage of this Bill, but I was intrigued by what consideration had been given to probate valuation. If someone is the owner of a Giambologna cup made of ivory, which is potentially worth millions, and which could have an exemption certificate granted to it, but they never apply for one and they die and they hand it over to a future generation, I assume that its value will be zero for that purpose.

David Rutley: Guidance will be given to help people understand the implications of this measure. We are making sure that the new regulator does their job formally to help the antique trade understand all the implications, and there will also be a public engagement exercise. My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, but I am sure that it will be further scrutinised in the other place as this Bill makes progress.
Let me return now to some remarks that I had previously wanted to get through, which is that we have had good debates on clause 35 both in Committee and on Report. The widening of the power to extend the definition of ivory to include that from non-CITES  species will be important, for example, if the prohibition in elephant ivory increases pressure on other ivory-bearing species and continues to fuel demand, or if the continued trade in other forms of ivory provides cover for the illegal trade of elephant ivory. This could well include ivory from the unfairly maligned warthog and the extinct mammoths. This will come as some relief to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is no longer in his place, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham). The widening of the power will also include other endangered species that Members have mentioned with such concern, including hippos, narwhals, walruses, killer whales and sperm whales. As I said on Report, the Government are committed to action.
We have today announced that we intend to consult on extending the ban to include other ivory species, and will seek to start the consultation process and to gather evidence on, or as soon as practicable after, Royal Assent. This process will ensure that if we do extend the scope of the ban, it will be robust, defensible, enforceable, and compliant with the European convention on human rights.

Stephen Kerr: Will my hon. Friend explain to the House how long he expects the consultation to last and what the sequence of events would be that we might arrive at some new legislation to protect these endangered species?

David Rutley: We will seek to do this as speedily as possible. A consultation normally lasts about 12 weeks, but, clearly, that work needs to be further reviewed, and then we can move things forward. I think that my hon. Friend can use his own process of deduction to work out that we can move this further and quicker than would have been set out by the Opposition’s amendments.
Let me conclude by thanking once again and paying tribute to the Secretary of State for his determination to introduce this Bill. I have also mentioned the important work that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has done in taking this Bill forward, ahead of its introduction in this House. It is also important to recognise the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) who set out his long-held ambitions to take this work forward. I also wish to pay particular tribute to those members of the Bill Committee who sat through various evidence sessions and made very important contributions during the Committee stage, including the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman). She made some characteristically thoughtful and considered contributions, even though we did not quite agree on some of the procedural matters. We are grateful for that constructive approach not just from Members of this House, but from representatives from conservation non-governmental organisations, from the musicians sector, from the arts and antiques sector, from the enforcement agencies and from others. I also wish to extend my thanks to our wonderful and hardworking Bill team, our private offices, our Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and the Whips who, like warthogs, can get overlooked  at times. I also wish to thank the Clerks and other parliamentary staff for their sterling work and support on this issue.
It has been a real honour to take the Bill from Second Reading through to today, particularly knowing that there has been such strong support from all parties across the House. I wish the Bill safe and speedy passage through its remaining stages in the other place.

Sue Hayman: I just want to reiterate that Labour is not opposing the Bill. We have sought to strengthen it in Committee and today, and I trust that the Minister and Conservative Members who sat on the Bill Committee would agree that we have demonstrated out earnest desire and efforts to do so.
It is good that there is clear, widespread, cross-party recognition that this comprehensive ban on the sale of ivory is needed. I thank the Bill Committee Clerk, Gail Poulton, for her tireless work with Members, for supporting me and my team and for her expert guidance. I also thank all members of the Committee from both sides of the House, including the Minister, for participation in a good-natured and thorough debate throughout. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who is no longer in her place, but was wearing a marvellous elephant dress earlier. I thought I was doing well wearing ivory-coloured clothes, but there we are. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) for his introductions to Obi-Wan narwhal. I thank all those hon. Friends for their support, time and dedication over the last few weeks. I also thank all the different organisations that have given us their time and expertise.
I would go as far as to say that there has been agreement in principle from all parties in the House for the premise behind the vast majority of the Labour amendments in Committee. All we were doing was seeking to increase transparency, remove conflicts of interest and clarify the definitions in the Bill. I will just highlight a few key concerns that came up in Committee.
We discussed an annual register of items exempted for having artistic, cultural or historical value. This was strongly supported by conservation groups during the Committee’s evidence hearing, and would ensure public confidence in the ivory ban and that any exemptions applied were fair. Despite not supporting our amendment, the Minister provided an assurance in Committee that steps would be taken to ensure the utmost transparency and public confidence. In time, it would be interesting to have more detail on those assurances. We also asked for assurances regarding the potential abuse of replacement certificates, as the Bill currently includes no limit on those. Again, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister more about how any potential abuse could be eliminated.
The Committee heard that the National Wildlife Crime Unit has only 12 members of staff to cover its whole area of operations, right across the UK, and that this number includes administrative staff as well as enforcement officers. This level was a cause for concern  in Committee, given the expanded responsibilities of the unit under the Bill. The Minister mentioned the potential for this being dealt with in the autumn statement—I think that is actually the Budget now, but it moves so often—so we would be grateful if the Minister acknowledged that these concerns exist so that they can then be addressed at that point.
The Committee also heard how the internet plays a central role in the sale of ivory products. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined plans for proactively policing and monitoring this online activity, and mention what kind of resources would be needed.
This Bill is a welcome step forward for the future of global elephant populations. I look forward to working with colleagues right across the House to ensure that we continue to do everything in our power to stamp out the global ivory trade and preserve these iconic animal species for generations to come.

John Bercow: A number of people still wish to speak, and we have 15 minutes remaining.

David Amess: I rise to speak in support of the Bill’s Third Reading. This is a day of celebration for all animals that have horns.
I detected a slight bit of grandstanding about who should take credit for this Bill—I understand all that. The hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) shared with the House the details of the terrible attack on Bella the rhino, and I absolutely understood the point that she was making. For my part, I could not care less who gets credit for the Bill; I am just delighted that it is happening. I think that the credit goes to all the women and men who have not just come to the party now, but have been campaigning on this issue year in, year out. They are the ones who should be congratulated.
I know that I am speaking in the House at the moment, where we sit opposite one another, but may I congratulate my Government, and particularly the Secretary of State, for at long last dealing with this issue and achieving something? The hon. Member for Workington tabled amendments to the Bill but, having worked it out, I think that following the consultation we can deal with the whole process within a year, which is quicker than would be the case under the Opposition’s approach. Our Australian neighbours, who are not in the World cup, are following our lead on this matter, and the Government’s plan to launch the Ivory Alliance 2024 will share our position further with other countries throughout the world. This is a great day for Parliament and a great day for the animal kingdom.

Lisa Cameron: This is a truly historic day. We have worked extremely hard in Committee and at the Bill’s other stages to bring the legislation to this point. I thank everybody who has been involved for working so well together. The Bill is historic because its purpose is to ensure that elephants and other at-risk ivory-bearing species survive and are effectively protected for generations to come. That is important for us, for our constituents right across the United Kingdom, and for future generations—our children and grandchildren, and beyond.
I am extremely proud to be able to speak today and commend the work that has taken place. I particularly thank the Minister for his careful consideration of these matters in Committee and today. He has worked very consensually. I also thank the shadow Minister for working very well. Across the House, we have all aimed to strengthen the Bill as much as possible to make sure that it has the maximum impact, because its impact is what is important and what we are aiming for. I would still like some assurances about funding for the national wildlife crime unit, because we must make sure that the legislation is enforceable in the UK, and about how colleagues in DFID will work with the communities that will be affected.
I pay tribute to the environmental and animal welfare agencies and groups that have been so involved in this for so long: the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Tusk, Stop Ivory and the Born Free Foundation, to mention just a few.
People think that we spend our time in the House debating the same issues repeatedly, going round and round in circles—often quite literally—but the very best work is undertaken in cross-party form with significant cross-party agreement. This Bill is a perfect example of Parliament acting consensually in the interests of all people. I am proud to have played a part and to represent the SNP on this historic matter.

Giles Watling: I would like to put on record how pleased I am that this Bill is going through the House today, and very speedily—I am grateful for that.
At a reception at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the other day, I watched a very sad film about Sudan, the last male white rhino, who, very sadly, died in March. There are two females left, but it looks as though they are going to die out. I do not want to attend a reception where we mourn the loss of the last elephant, so we must do all we can to protect them.
It is crucial to elephants that this Bill ushers in a vital change to bring us into line with other developed economies around the world that have already introduced their own bans. For too long, we have been overshadowed by the USA, China, France and some of the other biggest global ivory trade markets, which have already introduced comprehensive bans. I am pleased that we will now be part of that positive movement, because we have been absent for far too long.
I am delighted that the Bill will introduce a total ban on the sale of ivory, including, most importantly, antique ivory, because the antique ivory market in the UK is surprisingly large. Some so-called antique ivory is faked—it is aged and stained to look antique. We cannot allow that to happen, and that is why I am delighted that this Bill will be passed.
What is more, we must push for a global ban. In the aftermath of the Chinese ban, Ginette Hemley, the senior vice president of the World Wildlife Fund, said:
“This ban alone won’t end the poaching of elephants. It’s equally critical that China’s neighbors follow suit and shut down ivory markets across Asia.”
So let us in the UK lead the way with this Bill, and let other European countries follow us. I am very pleased with the Bill and I support it.

Ranil Jayawardena: It is rare that a Bill receives almost universal support, so it is terrific that it has been supported by Members on both sides of the House, despite a few amendments.
In the interests of time, let me cut to the crux of the matter: those awful, dangerous people who horrifically murder 20,000 or so elephants every year and are out of control. They will now see action being taken, with Britain playing its role as a leader in the world. We must act, and I am pleased that we are acting, because history will judge us on the action we take to protect these animals today and in the months ahead.
As we have heard, it is not only elephants that are endangered, so I was reassured by the Minister’s confirmation that the Government intend to go further and to carry out a consultation. I know that Members on both sides of the House are grateful for that confirmation and will welcome an extension to species alive and extinct. We will watch the Government closely to ensure that that happens as soon as possible.
We are beginning to win this argument—and we must win it. There must no longer be any excuses for these murderers. There is so much money at stake, and they must not be allowed to sidestep our laws through little loopholes here and there and claim that their elephant ivory is from somewhere else. I thank all Ministers involved for taking this swift, smart action. I commend the people in my constituency who have said that they want this action and Members on both sides of the House who have called for it. Animals deserve the Bill. I am pleased that we are getting on and delivering it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

OPPOSITION DAY - [15TH ALLOTTED DAY, 1ST PART]OPPOSITION DAY

Claim of Right for Scotland

John Bercow: We come to the motion in the name of the leader of the Scottish National party on the claim of right for Scotland. I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment. To move the motion, I call the leader of that party, ready in his place on the Front Bench, Mr Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: I beg to move,
That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.
Before I begin, I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating the former Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire and former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, George Reid, who is celebrating his golden wedding anniversary today with his wife, Daphne.
“The principle of unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctly English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”—
those words are not mine. They are the words of the Lord President of the Court of Session in 1953 during the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. This Parliament, I accept, has a great deal of power, and rightly all of us who are democrats should respect the will of the people, but if we are to accept and respect that will in this place, why not in Scotland?
Why do the Tory Government think they can do whatever they want to Scotland and get away with it? Many in Scotland are outraged that the Conservative Government have argued that times are not normal and that that allows them to change the devolution settlement in the teeth of the opposition of the Scottish Parliament. Put simply, the Conservatives have no mandate for their power grab on the Scottish Parliament. The case is this: in Scotland, it is the Scottish people who are sovereign.

Douglas Ross: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has spoken about a power grab. If there is a power grab, why did his leader in Scotland, the First Minister, have to increase her Cabinet from 16 to 26 because of all the extra powers coming to Holyrood, according to Nicola Sturgeon?

Ian Blackford: My goodness. We are talking about the sovereignty of the Scottish people and that is what we get. I am not even going to dignify that with a—[Interruption.] It is early in the debate. People will be watching, and it might be an idea—

John Bercow: Order. There is a tendency for there to be what I would call a gesticulation-fest whenever there is a debate between members of the Scottish National party and Government Back Benchers. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard, and I say gently to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), who is normally a model of the urbane representative of his people, that it is indeed an early stage, and he must remember above all the merits of calm.

Ian Blackford: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The reason that we have chosen this debate for our Opposition day is the real anger that people in Scotland feel about what has taken place. The Parliament that Scotland voted for in the referendum in 1997 is being attacked and our rights are being attacked by a Conservative Government, backed by their so-called Scottish Tory friends, who went through the Lobby to take away powers from the Scottish Parliament. We are having this debate tonight. Let us look around us. I can see my colleagues from the SNP and, to be fair, I can see colleagues from the Liberal Democrats and the Labour MPs from Scotland are here as well. Where is the rest of the House? Where are the Conservative MPs who voted through those measures? They cannot even be bothered to turn up to defend what the Conservatives have done to Scotland. That is the reality.

Stephen Kerr: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Blackford: I am not going to give way. Sit down.
It is very fitting that the SNP is using our Opposition day on 4 July, Independence Day, to defend the interests, the rights and the will of the Scottish people.—[Interruption.] Listen, it may not be Independence Day to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), but I will tell him this: the way the Conservative party is treating Scotland, our independence day is coming and it is coming soon.

Ian Murray: The right hon. Gentleman says that Scotland’s independence is coming. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I tabled an amendment to his motion—unfortunately, it was not selected, but we understand why. I wonder whether he would agree with that amendment to the motion on the basis that the Scottish people did have a vote in 2014 and they agreed to stay in the United Kingdom.

Ian Blackford: As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman is correct. Of course the people of Scotland voted in a referendum in 2014 and I say to him and others who put their name to the amendment that, yes, we would have accepted it had it been taken this afternoon.
The fundamental issue, as many people have said, is that, when the polls opened in Scotland on 18 September 2014, between the hours of 7 o’clock in the morning and 10 o’clock at night, the people of Scotland had sovereignty in their hands. The difference between SNP Members and the Conservatives is that we believe the Scottish people are always sovereign. In the light of the change in the facts and the circumstances—those being that Scotland voted to stay in the European Union by a decisive majority, and that the wishes and the rights of the Scottish people are being ignored by a Conservative Government who want to drive us out of Europe—it is perfectly right that the people of Scotland have the opportunity to demonstrate their sovereign will.

Nigel Evans: The right hon. Gentleman talks about referendums. I am getting a bit confused—it does not take a lot, I admit—but are we talking about the referendum on 23 June 2016, when the British people voted to leave the European Union  and, if they had decided to remain in the European Union, would those powers still be in Brussels, to this day?

Ian Blackford: For anyone watching this with subtitles, it might say, “Not for viewers in Scotland” because the fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland voted to stay in the European Union. That is the point. In the debate that took place during Scotland’s referendum in 2014, we were told two things: that if we stayed in the United Kingdom, we were to lead the United Kingdom, but also that, if we voted to stay in the United Kingdom, then our part in Europe would also be preserved. What has happened? Any pretence of Scotland leading the UK has been thrown away by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He does not believe that we are a partner in the UK; he believes that we are a part of the UK. How can we have a Secretary of State for Scotland, who is supposed to represent Scotland’s interests, when he is prepared to lie down and be walked all over because he does not see Scotland as an equal part of the United Kingdom? [Interruption.] He can shout and scream in this Chamber, but the reality is that he has failed to defend Scotland’s interests. [Interruption.] Yes, you can point and gesticulate, but the people of Scotland—

John Bercow: Order. I am not pointing or gesticulating. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is breathing fire, with considerable eloquence and at some pace, but does he wish to take an intervention from the Secretary of State—yes or no?

Ian Blackford: I will not in this case. I am grateful, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State will have an opportunity to speak later. I want to make progress because many Members wish to speak.
The claim of right acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and the obligation of elected representatives, in all their actions and deliberations, to ensure that the interests of the people of Scotland are paramount. The claim of right is not simply an historical document but a fundamental principle that underpins the democracy and constitutional framework of Scotland. The 1989 claim functions as a declaration of intent regarding the sovereignty of the Scottish people. It set the constitutional convention that, 10 years later, saw the people vote in a referendum for the re-establishment of a Scottish Parliament, which the UK Government now seek to undermine and ignore.

Alistair Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Scottish constitutional convention and the claim of right in 1989. With the benefit of hindsight, does he think that it was a mistake for the Scottish National party not to sign the claim of right or take part in the constitutional convention?

Ian Blackford: I am going to come on to deal with that. I acknowledge the work of the constitutional convention, but let us not forget that the reason the SNP was in that position was that others in the constitutional convention would not allow the principle of independence to be discussed at that time. I am grateful for the enormous progress that we have made on the back of the constitutional convention. Before those  on Opposition Benches begin to jeer and snigger, yes, it is a fact that the Scottish National party was not present for the signing and did not take part in the convention. The SNP took part in early discussions, but withdrew when it became clear that the convention would not countenance independence. We believe, and continue to believe, that ruling out such an option was to deny a key principle of the claim to choose the best form of government, but we have always supported the sentiments of the claim of right. The SNP has committed, and recommitted, to its principle. We acknowledge the sovereign rights of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.

Alberto Costa: All heart.

Ian Blackford: I really, really hope that people in Scotland are watching this. A Conservative Member from south of the border who failed to be elected in Scotland says, “All heart.”. This has nothing to do with heart—this is about the rights of the people of Scotland who voted for devolution and are finding that the UK Parliament is taking away their rights in the teeth of opposition from the Scottish Parliament and every single party there, with the exception of the Scottish Tories.
When will the Scottish Tories begin to listen to the people of Scotland? This is not about the SNP. This is about the Scottish Parliament. This is about the people of Scotland. Let us not forget that the Conservatives have lost every single election in Scotland since 1955. They have been defeated—[Interruption.] Yes, you can see—look at the 13 who have been elected. There are 35 of us here from the Scottish National party, which won the election for Scotland. That is the reality. The Conservatives are in a minority Administration in Parliament. They would love to have the majority of MPs that we have from Scotland, but it is not likely to happen.
We have defended the sentiment time and again, and we are here to do so again. “Why today?” some in the Chamber might ask. Well, the fact of the matter is that, over the past few weeks, we have seen the biggest power grab by this Government since devolution.

Douglas Ross: rose—

Ian Blackford: Sit down. We have seen the Tory Government disrespect the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish people. The interests and the democratic choices of the people of Scotland have been shoved aside by the UK Government. Devolution has been downgraded and the authority of our Parliament has been diminished. While the Tory Government in London seek to destroy our constitutional settlement and undermine the sovereignty of the Scottish people, we in the SNP will not let the Scottish people be ignored.

Alberto Costa: Turn up the volume.

Ian Blackford: I would simply say, just carry on, because what you have just done is insult the people of Scotland—[Interruption]—as you continue to do. We will do all we can to ensure that the wishes of the Scottish people are respected. Today, we ask—[Interruption.] I hear, “Scotland’s watching.” The question  to the Conservatives is: will you respect the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, yes or no? You’ve failed dismally to do it up til now.

Christine Jardine: I hugely respect the fact that the right hon. Gentleman says that he will respect the wishes of the Scottish people. Will that extend to respecting the wishes of the Scottish people when they voted no in the referendum and that was to be an end to it?

Ian Blackford: I am not sure the hon. Lady has been listening to me, because I have made that point. Of course we respect the 2014 referendum result, but the simple fact of the matter is that the circumstances have changed: we are being dragged out of Europe against our will. I expect that she wants us to stay in the single market and the customs union. She talks about a second referendum on Europe. What she should do is get behind the Scottish National party because, let me remind this House, in 2016 the SNP went to the people of Scotland and sought a mandate on having a referendum on Scottish independence if circumstances in Scotland changed. Guess what? We have a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament. If you want to protect Scotland’s interests in Europe, and if you want to stay in the single market and the customs union, it may well be the case that independence for Scotland is the only way to do that.

Christine Jardine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Blackford: I am going to make progress.
Today, we ask the House to consider the claim of right, to recommit itself to the spirit of devolution and to place the people of Scotland at the heart of decisions, not cast them aside. Only a few weeks ago, we witnessed the shameful Tory power grab. This House and this Government showed nothing but utter contempt for the devolved Administrations as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was pushed through without consideration of the views of the devolved institutions. The Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly, by 93 votes to 30, to refuse legislative consent for clause 15 of the Bill. As such, the Bill should not have been passed through the House of Commons with the clause intact, but the Tories decided this was acceptable. They trotted through the Lobby, voting against the will of the Scottish people—that’s what you did.
We all know that the Sewel convention established the long-held practice that the UK Government cannot legislate on devolved areas without the consent of the devolved Parliament—or at least we thought we did. [Interruption.] Well, there we are: this is the sovereign Parliament. You might want to say that to your voters in Scotland: that you don’t believe it is the people of Scotland who are sovereign, as was defined in the court case in 1953. You are prepared to throw away the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and allow Westminster to do whatever it likes. Frankly, that is not acceptable to the rest of us. How can you be Secretary of State for Scotland if you behave in such a way? That is not the Secretary of State for Scotland; that is the Government’s man in Scotland.

David Mundell: rose—

Ian Blackford: Sit down! Sit down.

John Bercow: Order. Just before the right hon. Gentleman continues, may I appeal to colleagues to lower the temperature? Passion is fine, and of course the right hon. Gentleman has the floor and is perfectly entitled to refuse to take an intervention, but I think simply to say baldly, “Sit down” to any Member is less than the courtesy we normally get from the right hon. Gentleman. I know he may feel he is being provoked, but he must avoid being provoked. He is certainly not being provoked by the Secretary of State. Let us just try to lower the temperature and have the debate on the issues, rather than on personalities.

Ian Blackford: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Now, thanks to the Tories, we have reached a dangerous and difficult place, which has exposed their lack of commitment to the Sewel convention. Their Brexit power grab has basically ripped up the Sewel convention and plunged us into constitutional crisis. We are in unknown territory. Only if the UK Government act to recognise and respect the will of the Scottish Parliament can we repair some of the damage. I say again to the Government: you have acted without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
Bring forward legislation that will protect the powers of the Scottish Parliament, and do it now. If the Secretary of State recognises his role in defending devolution, he should do so, and a failure to do that should mean, quite frankly, that he should resign because he is not standing up for the interests of the people of Scotland.
The House should know that it is not simply the SNP’s view that the Tory power grab has thrown the devolution settlement into crisis. In Scotland, the feeling is apparent everywhere you go. People right across Scotland want power in Scotland’s hands. Recent polling from NatCen revealed that a majority of Scots trust Holyrood to make decisions in areas that the Tories want to grab for Westminster. Over 60% want fishing decisions in Scotland following Brexit and 59% want farming powers in Scottish hands.
Of course, they have form because we know that in 2013, the European Union voted to give additional payments to Scottish crofters and farmers—€230-odd million of additional support—86% of which was supposed to come to Scotland between 2016 and 2020. What has happened? Westminster has handed over 16.5%. The rest has gone into budgets across the rest of the United Kingdom, and crofters and farmers have been short-changed by a Government that have not accepted their obligations to Scottish farmers. It is little wonder that people in Scotland want to make sure that the Scottish Parliament have powers over farming and fishing, and not this Tory Government that have not just grabbed powers but have grabbed money out of the pockets of hard-working Scottish crofters and farmers.
A majority of Scots have lost confidence in the UK’s handling of Brexit, with a full 69% now saying that they believe it has been badly handled. During earlier debates, we heard the Tories trying to justify the UK Government’s shoddy power grab by falsely claiming that Scotland would not lose powers. However, the Scottish Government published a list of powers at risk. They include powers over fishing, farming, rail franchises and fracking licences, to name but a few, but this Government have shown  disrespect to our Parliament more than once. Their legal challenges to the Scottish Parliament’s continuity Bill, for one, clearly show the arrogance of the Conservative Government when faced with the will of the Scottish people. Why is it right that the Conservative Government believe that they can take the Scottish Parliament and, by extension, the Scottish people to court? That is exactly what is happening—what arrogance!
The Scottish Parliament voted by 95 votes to 32 to pass the continuity Bill, aimed at preparing Scotland’s laws for the impact of leaving the EU in the light of the refusal to grant a legislative consent motion to Westminster’s European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The people of Scotland expect the two Governments to co-operate on these matters. They also expect that the decisions and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament should be respected. The decision, therefore, of the UK Government to attempt to overturn the will of the Scottish Parliament in the courts is unprecedented and unacceptable.

Christine Jardine: On that point, those who were responsible for framing the devolution settlement have assured me that what is happening now is what was intended and is included—[Interruption.] It is what people voted for in 1997 and is included in the devolution settlement. If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about Scotland being “dragged” out of the European Union, why does he not join us in backing a people’s vote on the final deal?

Ian Blackford: I simply say to the hon. Lady that if she wants to stay in Europe and in the single market and the customs union, there is already a mandate in the Scottish Parliament for a referendum of independence. Join us in protecting Scotland’s interests!

Alistair Carmichael: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Blackford: No, I will not—I am going to make progress.
Westminster cannot unilaterally rewrite the devolution settlement and impose UK-wide frameworks in devolved areas without consent. The truth of the matter is that right from the start of the Brexit process, we have seen the UK Government attempting to avoid all attempts at democratic engagement. It took a decision from the courts to force them to consult Parliament over the decision to trigger article 50. Similarly, the UK Government ignored all requests from the devolved Administrations to be involved in the process of triggering article 50, despite Scotland voting overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. Where was the respect? Where was the engagement? There was none.
The Tories have not just ignored the will of the Scottish Parliament; they ignore the interests of the Scottish people. For years, their austerity agenda has punished the people of Scotland. The Tory obsession with punishing the poor and protecting the rich has seen families struggle in hardship, women denied their right to a fair pension, and women who were victims rape made to justify their rights to child benefit. It is absolutely shameful. The policies of this Tory Government are morally repugnant and have no place in a civilised, compassionate Scotland.
On 26 January 2012, Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, led a debate on the claim of right with the motion that Parliament
“acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.”
At that time, 102 MPS voted for the motion, with 14 Tories voting against—the same old Tories voting against the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Even then, the Tories could not, would not, stand up for the Scottish people.

Gerard Killen: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the words of Nicola Sturgeon, and I just wanted to draw his attention to her words at the SNP’s Aberdeen conference in 2015, when she said:
“To propose another referendum in the next parliament without strong evidence that a significant number of those who voted No have changed their minds would be wrong and we won’t do it. It would not be respecting the decision that people made.”
What has changed since she said that?

Ian Blackford: For the hard of hearing on the Labour Benches: Brexit.
The Tories pay lip service to devolution, but they do not believe in it. They do not believe that the Scottish people should have the right to determine the form of government that best suits their needs. What are they afraid of? They are afraid of power being in the hands of the Scottish people. Surely, we are all democrats. Surely, even the UK Government must now accept that it is the people we serve, not they who serve us. That is the crux of this debate. As outlined in the quote I began my remarks with, in Scotland things are different because our view of government is different: it is not top-down; it is ground-up. The single job of government is to serve the interests of our people. It is to carry out their will and to improve their lives—something the Tories have yet to learn.
Today, let the Tories learn this. In Scotland, the people of Scotland are sovereign and the Scottish Parliament embodies the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Next year sees the 20th anniversary of the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament—something that was fought for by many for generations. [Interruption.] I hear someone shouting, “Not you!”

Alistair Carmichael: It was one of your colleagues actually.

Ian Blackford: Well, if the comment was about the Conservatives, it was absolutely right. Let us not forget that Bill after Bill was introduced in this Parliament from 1913 right through to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. In 1997, the Conservatives opposed devolution, and they are still opposing it, which is why they are attacking the Scottish Parliament’s powers with such glee, led by this so-called Secretary of State for Scotland. He should be ashamed of himself.
Our Scottish Parliament finds itself under threat of a power grab from the very party that opposed its creation in the first place. More than two decades after Scotland voted for a Scottish Parliament, the UK Government’s withdrawal Bill constitutes the biggest power grab since devolution. The Secretary of State promised a  “powers bonanza” to the Scottish Parliament, while his colleague the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs went as far as to suggest that immigration powers could be devolved to Scotland. Despite that promise, the Secretary of State for Scotland consistently failed to name one power in that bonanza coming back to Scotland. In December 2017, he promised that amendments would be made to the withdrawal Bill on Report, before going back on that promise and allowing amendments to be made only in the unelected House of Lords. The Secretary of State has not once apologised for the fact that the House of Commons never had that opportunity—that this elected Chamber never had the opportunity to discuss amendments to a Bill that affected the devolution of Scotland—thus showing utter contempt for our Parliament and for our people. Since then the Secretary of State has been missing in action, refusing to lead on an emergency debate on the Sewel convention which was called by the SNP following a refusal to allow time for us to debate clause 15 once the Bill had returned from the House of Lords.
If Members are not convinced of the Secretary of State’s inadequacy for the job, let them hear this. He recently removed all doubt about his views by saying, “Scotland is not a partner in the UK.” Scotland is not equal: that is exactly what this Government think of the people of Scotland, and their actions reflect that sentiment. The Secretary of State cannot stand up for Scotland, because he does not recognise Scotland as a partner in the United Kingdom. He has unilaterally downgraded our role. It is little wonder that he is without consequence when it comes to standing up for Scotland. What a damning indictment of the Tory party!

David Mundell: The right hon. Gentleman is setting out his case for independence, which is to be based on deceit and misrepresentation. I never once said—and I have Hansard here to prove it—that Scotland was not part of the United Kingdom, or was not a partner in the United Kingdom. What SNP Members claim is that Scotland is a partner of the United Kingdom, because they want Scotland and the United Kingdom to be separate entities. They are not. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom; Scotland is at the heart of the United Kingdom; and, ultimately, that is what the right hon. Gentleman objects to.

Ian Blackford: What we object to is a Secretary of State who cannot do his job in standing up for the people of Scotland. The simple fact is that what we are talking about today is the claim of right for Scotland. We are not arguing for independence for Scotland, although that day will come. We are simply talking about the principle, and about where sovereignty lies. We are affirming the rights of the people of Scotland to be sovereign. Everyone can see what is going on here. Conservative Members seem to be denying the rights of the people to that sovereignty.
Let me issue this challenge to the Conservatives, here and now: we have placed a motion before you. Have the guts to come through the Lobbies tonight with us, affirming the sovereignty of the Scottish people, or, if you so dare, oppose the motion. Show that you have the guts to stand in the face of that motion. If you fail to do so, it will be the accepted will of this House that it has recognised the sovereignty of the Scottish people.  Tonight you have a choice. You can sit and chunter and shout and bawl and laugh, as you have done since the debate started, or you can go through the Lobbies later and stand up for the people of Scotland. You can affirm the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, or you can flunk it. History has shown that, on every step of the way, you have argued against the interests of the people of Scotland.

Bill Grant: Let me just say that Members on this side never walked out and turned their backs on the people of Scotland from this Parliament, unlike those on the right hon. Gentleman’s side.

Ian Blackford: The simple fact is that we were faced with a situation—and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed—in which the Conservative Government pushed through the withdrawal Bill, which took powers from the Scottish Parliament without a debate in the House. The hon. Gentleman and all his friends went through the Lobbies to take those powers from the people of Scotland. I am proud of the fact that it is the Scottish National party that is standing up for the people of Scotland. What the Conservatives are doing is allowing Scotland to be walked all over, and the hon. Gentleman and his friends are guilty as charged.
The Conservative party has no mandate to speak for Scotland, but thinks it can do whatever it wants to Scotland and get away with it. The Conservatives opposed devolution in the first place. They have consistently voted against Scotland’s interests, and now they want to dismantle the rights of our Parliament, downgrading devolution and dismissing the views of the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland asked for none of this. They voted decisively against leaving the European Union, yet now they face the socioeconomic chaos from a hard Tory Brexit.
Before she became Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) set out her view of a UK
“in which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England continue to flourish side-by-side as equal partners.”
Yet the views of the people of Scotland are disregarded; instead the Prime Minister has shut out and silenced the people of Scotland from the Brexit debate. The Secretary of State for Scotland was not even invited to the meeting at Chequers where the Government discussed Brexit; his views were not called upon, inconsequential in the process the UK Government were going through.
While the Scottish Parliament is not yet 20 years old, it has made remarkable achievements in free education, personal care and prescriptions, world-leading climate change targets, the smoking ban, and huge strides forwards in attitude towards sectarianism, sexual equality and multiculturalism.
Meanwhile there is the question of waiting times. When we look at A&E in Scottish hospitals, we find that the record is far better than that of the Conservative Government in London, and the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), rather than doing down the health service in Scotland, should be talking up the successes of the Scottish Parliament and Government in delivering for the people of Scotland.
Meanwhile in Westminster, the cruel and callous Tory policies, such as the rape clause, the bedroom tax, austerity and of course Brexit, stand in stark contrast  to our approach. In Scotland we do things differently, and this place needs to recognise that the first step is for Westminster to respect the will of the Scottish Parliament. Will this place do it? Will this House recognise that the Scottish Parliament has not given a consent motion to the withdrawal Bill? Will this Parliament now recant and make sure the powers that have been grabbed are sent back to the Scottish Parliament? That is what the people of Scotland expect.
We were promised this in 2014: Gordon Brown said a no vote in the independence referendum would lead to changes offering “as close to federalism as possible”. In the end nothing close to that was delivered. And before the Tories leap from their Benches, I say yes, we in the SNP respect the will of the Scottish people decided in 2014, but the claim of right is important, because it allows the sovereignty of Scotland to choose, and that means that if Scotland decides it wants change, then it should be respected. Why should Conservatives stand in the way of the sovereignty and rights of the Scottish people, and why should Scottish Conservatives allow that to happen? Is their responsibility not to stand up for their constituents—for their needs and their wishes?
The Scottish Government were elected in May 2016 on a manifesto which said in relation to independence:
“The Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum...if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out the EU against our will.”
Given events since 2016, there is therefore no question about the legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland to consider the question of independence. Everything has changed.
This Parliament today must show that it understands, recognises and respects the right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, including during this time of significant change. I urge all Members to defend the interests of the people of Scotland and to vote to recognise the claim of the right of the Scottish people. Our people’s sovereignty—Scotland’s sovereignty—must be, and will be, respected.

David Mundell: May I begin by sharing the good wishes expressed towards George Reid, the former presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament? I voted for George Reid to be presiding officer in 1999 and again in 2003 because he was a man of substance. George Reid was not a man who would have come to this Chamber as an MP and dished out abuse to another Member and then failed to take an intervention. He was not a man who would have come to this Chamber and distorted the words of a fellow MP so that he could put forward his case. He was a man of principle who argued—and I am sure still argues—for independence on the basis of principle, not of deceit, abuse and misrepresentation.
This debate is a missed opportunity. We could have been discussing the future of Scotland. We could have spent the time talking about our plans to realise the sea of opportunity presented to our fishermen by leaving the EU. We could have talked about city deals, or our industrial strategy. Instead, we are having this debate, which says nothing about the future of Scotland but everything about the Scottish National party and their  obsession with independence. They are like a broken record. It is less than two years since Parliament debated the claim of right at the behest of the SNP. In the interim, we have had an electoral test in Scotland in the form of a general election. The result, as I recall, was that the SNP lost 21 seats and that there were  12  Conservative gains. That debate was a charade then—an excuse to talk about independence—and it is a charade today. But what else should we expect?
The leader of the SNP Westminster group, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), set out his position very clearly exactly a week ago. Nothing else matters to the SNP—not improving Scotland’s sluggish economy, and certainly not preparing Scotland for Brexit. For the right hon. Gentleman, Brexit is nothing more than a
“clear road map to a second independence referendum”.
That is his stated “priority”.

Joanna Cherry: The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that this debate is all about a second independence referendum and about the SNP. Can I ask him this: does he agree with article 1 of the charter of the United Nations?

David Mundell: I am sure that I do agree with article 1 of the charter of the United Nations. I believe in people’s right to self-determination, and I believe that the people of Scotland set out clearly what they wanted in the 2014 independence referendum. The problem is that the SNP cannot accept that most inconvenient of truths for them. The people of Scotland exercised their right to choose their future in 2014. They were very clear that they wished to remain in the United Kingdom. Shamefully, the SNP are determined to ignore them—the people they claim to represent. If the SNP truly believed in the rights of the Scottish people, would they not accept the result? Would they not listen to the Scottish people?
The claim of right in 1989 played an important part in the campaign for a Scottish Parliament. It was about devolution, and its authors were explicit in their aims. As we have already heard, the Scottish National party acknowledged as much when they refused to sign it. They refused to sign it because it had nothing to do with their own cause of independence. So in this debate we have not only the claim of right to consider; we also have the claim of rewriting history. That is a claim that has often been levelled at the SNP.
Rather than misrepresenting the claim of right as a means of justifying a second, unwanted independence referendum, the SNP should reflect on what it really means. It means that the UK Government respected the right of the people of Scotland to choose whether to remain part of the UK. It means that we worked with the Scottish Government to facilitate the referendum in 2014. It means that, together, we delivered a legal, fair and decisive vote. The decision of the people of Scotland—reaffirming their desire to have two Parliaments and two Governments—should be respected.

Joanna Cherry: Will the Minister give way?

David Mundell: Not at this stage.
The UK Government have consistently supported devolution. After the 2014 vote, we established the Smith commission with a view to expanding the powers of the Scottish Parliament. We delivered Lord Smith’s recommendations in full, adding wide-ranging new powers over tax and welfare to the devolution settlement and establishing Holyrood as one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world. We are committed to working closely with the Scottish Government to transfer the last of the new powers smoothly and securely, and devolution will be strengthened further as we leave the EU and powers that have been held in Brussels for 40 years flow to Holyrood.
It is surely a strange kind of power grab that leaves the grabbed with more power than ever. I have been disappointed, but not in the slightest bit surprised, by the SNP’s power grab scaremongering, their hot air and their grandstanding stunts. However, I was surprised when the whole confection of the alleged power grab was shot down by none other than Nicola Sturgeon during her reshuffle last week. She said, “I need more Ministers because of all the extra powers that the Scottish Government must exercise.” It was incredible.
The UK Government are working closely with the Scottish Government as powers return from Brussels, and I do not think that more than 80 powers returning directly to the Scottish Parliament should be scoffed at. It is a real opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to continue to shape what is best for Scotland. Throughout the process we have followed, and will follow, the Sewel convention—one of the pillars of the devolution settlement. It is a cast-iron commitment and not difficult to make because, unlike the SNP, we believe in devolution.
The people of Scotland voted for devolution in 1997. We accepted their decision and embraced devolution. The people of Scotland reaffirmed their support for remaining in the United Kingdom in 2014. In every election to the Scottish Parliament since 1999, a majority of voters have backed parties which support devolution. How much democracy does the SNP need before it gets the message?

Stewart McDonald: Was Ruth Davidson not spot on when she said after the independence referendum that it was entirely legitimate, even honourable, for the SNP to continue to argue its case for Scottish independence?

David Mundell: Indeed. It is perfectly legitimate and even honourable for the SNP to argue the case for independence, but not on the pretext that it is standing up for devolution, in which it clearly does not believe.
The SNP has neither accepted nor supported devolution other than as a stepping stone to independence. It does not want devolution to succeed and seeks any excuse to undermine it. Within minutes of the result of the EU referendum being declared, Nicola Sturgeon put her civil servants to work drawing up plans for a second independence referendum and, in the same breath, airbrushed from history the 1 million people in Scotland who voted to leave the EU—500,000 of them probably SNP supporters, whose views have been completely disregarded.
The SNP has sought not to deliver Brexit—that would be respecting voters across the UK, which it finds impossible—but to weaponise it in its campaign  for independence. I am pleased to say the Prime Minister has been clear about the SNP’s obsession with independence. The PM said last year: “Now is not the time”. Our position is exactly the same today. It will not be the time in the autumn; nor will it be when we leave the EU in the spring of next year. We will respect the wishes of the Scottish people which, as opinion polls have consistently shown, have not changed since 2014. The nationalists should do the same.

Patricia Gibson: The right hon. Gentleman makes much of the result of the EU referendum, but he refuses to accept that the result in Scotland was different. Okay, assuming for a moment that he is correct, would he care to comment on John Major’s analysis of the EU referendum? He said:
“Many electors now know they were misled”
and that the leave campaign was verging on “squalid”.

David Mundell: People have strong views about the EU referendum, but a vote was held throughout the United Kingdom, and it was clear from the outset that it would be. The majority of people across the UK voted to leave the EU, and I respect that decision.

Paul Masterton: Does the Secretary of State agree that the crucial problem here is that SNP Members appear to be completely unable to distinguish between the will of the Scottish people and the whim of the Scottish National party?

David Mundell: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right. This is all about independence. Everything put to us this evening—the complaints about the current constitutional arrangements—is not about standing up against those arrangements or standing up for Scotland in the devolution settlement but about finding a way to put yet another argument for independence.
SNP Members are ignoring the wishes of the Scottish people, and they are losing the argument. In fact, they are no longer arguing at all, except among themselves. The speech by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber was as much for an SNP conference, for a core SNP audience, as it was for this Chamber. I do not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you remember the big tent that they promised to put up after their defeat in the 2014 referendum to encourage more people to support their cause—their promise to listen, for once, to the majority of Scots. Well, the big tent has been torn down. All we have now are manufactured grievances. They invent, they misrepresent, they abuse. They try to shout down those who disagree with them. They glory in childish stunts that embarrass the people they purport to represent. If we believe in democracy and the principle contained in the claim of right, the most important thing we must do is listen to the people. We must respect the votes they have cast. We must listen when they say they do not want a second, divisive independence referendum.
I am happy to support the motion this evening—I would have preferred it if the amendment had been selected and added—because I do believe that the people of Scotland determine their constitutional future. They have done that: they want to stay in the United Kingdom.

Lesley Laird: I have no doubt that today’s debate simply sums up what passes as political leadership in Scotland. Indeed, we have already heard the gist of it from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). The majority of people in Scotland are entirely sick of it.
The people of Scotland are stuck between two competing nationalist Governments, which results in debates like the one we will hear tonight. For hon. Members who are not from Scotland: if people in the UK are fed up with listening to talk of Brexit, on which the referendum was only two years ago, just think how fed up people in Scotland are every time they hear the word “independence.”
Before 2014, depending on who we listened to, we were told that the independence referendum was a once-in-a-generation or a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We even heard that in the Scottish Government’s White Paper—question 557 on page 566—which turns out to be one more piece of proof that the White Paper was a work of fiction, cobbled together at taxpayers’ expense.

Stewart McDonald: If not cobbled together, what was Gordon Brown’s description of Scotland getting the closest thing to federalism possible if it voted no?

Lesley Laird: As Members have touched on, the vow was fully delivered. The fact that the Scottish Government have had to increase the size of the Cabinet so much in the past few years simply reflects the fact that they have more powers and that they are recognised as the most powerful independent Parliament in the UK.

Stewart McDonald: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lesley Laird: I will move on.
Here we are today, not four years after the referendum, and the issue has never gone away. Labour’s position on the claim of right is unambiguous. We helped to write it, we signed it, we supported it in the past and we will support it in the future. The claim of right states that the Scottish people have the sovereign right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. Determining the form of government best suited to their needs is exactly what people in Scotland already do and it is exactly what they did in the 2014 independence referendum. People in Scotland were faced with a choice: to leave the United Kingdom and have the Scottish Government as their sole Government, or to remain in the United Kingdom and have two Governments. They chose the latter, by 55% to 45%.

Neil Gray: The motion talks about the claim of right, rather than the votes we have had previously. Labour used to support this, so I wonder whether she feels she might be able to support the motion this evening.

Lesley Laird: Labour will always be happy to support the claim of right—I have just outlined that position.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lesley Laird: If Members will allow me to continue, I will expand further on that point. The form of government that people in Scotland chose was that of dual governance,  something that the SNP has failed to accept. It is not what is best for Scotland that SNP Members are interested in, but what is best for their single obsession. If anyone thinks otherwise, the launch of a petition today on rewriting the claim of right to reference only independence should leave no one in any doubt about the SNP’s priorities. The Labour party supported the current claim of right. In fact, I would argue that the claim of right was instrumental in the Scottish Constitutional Convention that led to devolution in Scotland. That fact goes to the heart of the issue we face today. Two parties did not sign the claim of right in 1989—the SNP and the Conservatives. Why did they not sign it? The Tories never signed it because they did not believe in devolution, and, as their recent performances show, they still do not. The SNP never signed it because the SNP has never been interested in devolution—it has always been, and still is, all about independence. The irony now is that the SNP is asking us to support the principles of something that it never signed up to in the first place! Again, I guess we are where we are.
Let me talk about where we are today. This is the SNP’s half-day debate, one of only three Opposition day debates the SNP gets a year. Is it not extraordinary that of all the things that the SNP could have used this time to talk about this is what they opted for? It is absolutely extraordinary, except of course when it is seen through the narrow prism of the SNP’s obsession. Politics will always be about priorities.

Stephen Kerr: It is extraordinary that the SNP has chosen this subject for its half-day debate. What is even more extraordinary is the performance of the leader of the SNP in this place. It is with great sadness that I reflect on how diminished a personage he now is in the eyes of this House because of the way in which he has conducted himself in these debates. He has been largely impolite. He has shouted abuse across the Floor of the House. Does the hon. Lady agree that the standards of Parliament demand that we set a high standard—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Enough.

Lesley Laird: I think the Speaker set out clearly the standards that are expected of all Members. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, the public are indeed  watching.
As I was saying, politics is, as ever, about priorities. By neglecting so many serious issues today, the SNP has shown contempt for the real issue and the issues of their constituents. The SNP could have chosen to talk about issues of welfare as they affect Scotland, such as the unfair treatment of terminally ill patients or the motor neurone disease group that has come to London, even in the bitter snow, to plead for reform of the assessment programme. The SNP could have chosen to talk about the fact that 52% of people living in poverty in Scotland are actually in work. The SNP could have chosen to talk about the 1.8 million people on zero hours contracts. The SNP could have chosen to talk about the unprecedented growth in the use of food banks. In my own constituency, Kirkcaldy food bank has seen its spend go from £3,000 a month to £8,000 a month now.
SNP Members could have chosen to talk about the one in four children in Scotland living in poverty, and they could have supported Scottish Labour’s amendment to the Bill in the Scottish Parliament, but they did not. They could have chosen to talk about the thousands of 1950s women who have had their pension callously and cruelly cut by the Conservative Government. They could have chosen to talk about the need for investment in shipbuilding in Rosyth and Govan and the UK Government’s decision to put the fleet solid support ships contract out to international tender. They could have chosen to talk about industrial strategy, or lack of it, and how that impacts on Scottish jobs, or about the hostile immigration policy that has seen Giorgi, a 10-year-old orphaned boy facing uncertainty and the Kamil family going on hunger strike, an issued raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney). These are real people, with real-life issues, and they need MPs like us to use this platform to raise their issues. But no, instead, SNP Members chose to talk about what they always talk about; instead, they chose to debate the only thing that truly matters to them: the constitution and indyref2.

David Linden: The hon. Lady just listed a number of subjects that she wants to be debated; will she confirm which of them Labour will choose as the subject of its Opposition day debate next week?

Lesley Laird: I am happy to confirm that to the hon. Gentleman after this debate; I am focused on the matter at hand.
We are where we are. Labour is opposed to a second referendum. People in Scotland made their decision and they decided to remain part of the UK. YouGov polling from June shows that absolutely nothing has changed: it is still 55% to 45%.
In the light of the SNP growth commission paper, Labour would not stand by and see the people of Scotland being subjected to at least another 10 years of austerity just to balance the books. The reality of the “cuts commission” is there for all to see. Read it and weep about what the SNP is prepared to inflict upon the Scottish people, all in the name of independence. My colleagues in the Scottish Parliament will always oppose it.
Labour is clear that the fight against indyref2 is not for this place, because—let me be clear—at that point it is about process. If people in Scotland elect to the Scottish Parliament parties that wish to hold a second referendum, it is not for Westminster to deny them that right. That is exactly what the claim of right is about, and were we to vote against that, we would not be upholding the principle of the claim of right.
I wish now to make some points to those on the Government Benches and ask them to do something that they have failed to do so far, which is listen. I was delighted that the Secretary of State indicated that he was prepared to listen this evening. Your actions are fanning the fires of a second independence referendum. The UK Government’s complete inability to negotiate Brexit, layered on top of their inability to engage in a meaningful way with the Scottish Government on Brexit, has led us down this path. That is what has led to the constitutional bind in which we find ourselves. I find that astounding for a party that claims to be the protector of the Union.
Government Members know that the SNP’s cause is always furthered by grievance, so why would the UK Government allow grievances to occur and to be exploited, when they have it in their gift to address the concerns? Because Scotland’s voice has been shut out of the Brexit negotiations. There has been no Joint Ministerial Committee for eight months. Discussions between the Governments have broken down entirely. There has been no debate on the final devolution amendments.

David Mundell: I know that some on the Opposition Benches—I would not have thought the hon. Lady was among them—want to talk up this point about relations having broken down and to say that the Governments are not in contact, but there is a JMC meeting tomorrow.

Lesley Laird: I am absolutely delighted about that; let us hope it is more productive than the previous two meetings, which were cancelled.
The Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly to withhold consent for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, yet the Government are still not listening. I simply say to Government Members and to the Secretary of State: what did the UK Government expect to happen?
Our constituents do not want us to stand in the House of Commons giving each other a history lesson. They want us to be here defending them and addressing the gross inequality that we see in our society. As we all know, we do not have to look very far to see that. Independence will not solve the problems that we face in our society. I argue that, based on the “cuts commission”, the inequality that we see in our society would become even greater.
People in Scotland do have the right to determine the Government best suited to their needs, and the choice is becoming very, very clear. A vote for the Tories is a vote for austerity, and a vote for the SNP is a vote for austerity. A vote for the Labour party is a vote for jobs, for investment in health and education and for a different way of doing things that addresses the fundamental issues that matter to people day in and day out.
Labour has committed to ending this austerity junket, and we commit ourselves to an economy that works for the people, rather than people simply working for the economy. We have committed to major investment in Scotland. In March, my right hon. Friend, the shadow Chancellor, detailed how Scotland would benefit to the tune of £70 billion over the course of 10 years if there were a Labour Government across the UK. Some £30 billion of that would be from Barnett consequentials, which means greater investment in our schools, our NHS, our local communities and our police and fire services. The only way that the people in Scotland will see the change that their society requires is from a radical Labour Government who have the political will to tackle poverty and inequality, extend public ownership and redistribute power from the few to the many. That is the economic and social transformation that Scotland urgently needs, and that will not come from another referendum on leaving the UK. The sovereign people of Scotland have already clearly expressed their view; it is time to respect it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the next speaker, it will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak this evening and that we have limited time. There will therefore be an initial time limit of eight minutes, though that might be reduced.
Before I call the next person to speak, let me say that I hesitate always to interrupt someone when they are in the flow of their rhetoric, but it has been very difficult not to do so when several people this evening have used the word “you” when they are talking about other people in this Chamber. In this Chamber, the word “you” means the Chair. There is a good reason for not saying “you”, because “you” is a very direct, personal criticism, whereas “the hon. Gentleman” or “the hon. Lady” is once removed, and that is how we do things in this Chamber. It is very important to keep that distance when we have a heated debate, so although I have not interrupted anybody so far for the use of the word “you”, I will from now on. You—I am allowed to say “you”—have been warned.

Douglas Ross: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I can use the word “you”, I will say that it is great to see you in the Chair for this important debate about Scotland.
I have to say that I love this place; I love the Chamber—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) says that I love the Nou Camp. Yes, I do. It was a great honour and privilege for me, as someone from Moray who started on football pitches at Forres Academy, to reach the Nou Camp.

David Linden: rose—

Douglas Ross: I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
I was very grateful for the support that I received in Moray from people who were not impressed by the antics of the SNP, which forced me to give up a lifetime ambition. That has happened, and I accept it—I am delighted to be here tonight to speak—but to make such petty remarks is really following in the footsteps of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and I hope that, as I give way to the hon. Gentleman, he will consider his tone in this debate.

David Linden: The point is that on the night when the hon. Gentleman was at the Nou Camp, he was not here scrutinising the Government on universal credit.

Douglas Ross: That debate on universal credit was one in which I was never intending to speak, and that night’s vote was very interesting, because no one voted against the motion on universal credit. The debate was called for by SNP Members, and they then manufactured a vote. We will all be looking very closely at manufactured votes if there is consensus in the Chamber tonight on what we are debating.
I agreed wholeheartedly with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). I started off by saying that I love this place. I love this Chamber and I love these Benches, but tonight, for the first time, I have not enjoyed it. I like the cut and thrust of debate as much as anyone else, but I do not agree with the personal attacks on the Secretary of State for Scotland that we saw from the right hon. Member for  Ross, Skye and Lochaber. Hon. Members can disagree with the office and with what the Secretary of State is doing, but to get so personal—to play the man rather than the ball—does not serve the right hon. Gentleman well and does not serve his party well. When I tried to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman, he was throwing his arm at me disrespectfully and he had to be called out by Mr Speaker for his actions. I hope that after this Opposition day debate he will reflect on the way in which he performs in this Chamber, because Scotland is watching and Scotland wants to see its politicians in both Parliaments working together where they can, and constructively disagreeing when that has to happen, but not doing so in such a personal way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s current silence means that he is reflecting on what he said and, more importantly, how he said it.

Ian Blackford: I want to reiterate that my opposition to the Conservatives and the Secretary of State is entirely political; I have said nothing personal. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on this: it is a matter of record that two weeks ago, I was asked to commit suicide by a Conservative Member of Parliament. I will also say to the hon. Gentleman something that I have not yet raised in this House. Last night, while sitting on these Benches—this was witnessed by other people—I was told what to do in very explicit terms involving a four-letter word beginning with F that has previously been used by the Foreign Secretary, so I am not going to take any lectures from Government Members about how to behave. I am the one who is being abused by the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues by being told to commit suicide and being told to “F off”, so I am not going to take any lectures from him. [Applause.]

Hear, hear!

Eleanor Laing: Order. Let me just make it clear: no clapping; just shouts of “Hear, hear.” It is fine to support, but no clapping.

Douglas Ross: The point that I was trying to get at is that the mask is slipping with the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and the SNP. He mentions actions that took place last night. I hope that his own Members reflect on what an hon. Lady—she is not here, so I will not name her—did at the conclusion of last night’s debate with her actions towards my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. I know that that will have been noted by SNP Members, and that behaviour also cannot be allowed to continue in this House.
Twenty-four hours is a long time in politics. Yesterday, a debate about the economy of Scotland—about the amount of money that Scotland gets from Westminster to spend in the devolved Administration—could only attract two SNP MPs. Yet a debate about the constitution and the SNP’s obsession with independence can attract far more. However, I was really surprised that only 16 SNP Members were present at the start of the speech by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber tonight. Half the parliamentary party could not even be bothered to be here for the start of the SNP’s Opposition day debate. I wonder whether that is because, like many of us, they disagree with the subject that is being taken forward tonight.

Peter Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Douglas Ross: I will give way in a moment.
I wonder whether many of the SNP Members wish that we were discussing other things. Today of all days, when the UK Government have launched their White Paper on fisheries, we could have been discussing fisheries. This would have been a great opportunity for the SNP to talk about fisheries, because the subject is very topical today. But SNP Members did not want to do that because of their policy on fisheries. The SNP lost Moray and 20 other seats around Scotland because of its policy on fisheries, which says, “We don’t want these powers going to Westminster. We want to give them straight back to Europe.”
We could have been speaking about education, because SNP Members quite often say in this place, “This is what we will do in Scotland, so UK Government Ministers should replicate it in the UK.” [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to any of the ladies who are trying to have a conversation at the moment, but otherwise I will continue my speech.
I mention education particularly because SNP spokespeople and Back Benchers quite often stand up in the Chamber to ask the Government to do exactly what is being done in Scotland. Well, I hope that they never do that again with education, because in Scotland the SNP has had to withdraw its flagship Bill on education—its No. 1 priority, about which the First Minister and leader of the SNP said, “This will get all our attention.” That is how big a priority education is for the SNP. What about higher education? The First Minister of Scotland nominated someone who had deplorable views on transgender people, on black people and on Jews. That is also why SNP Members cannot discuss education in their Opposition day debate.

Patricia Gibson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It appears that the gentleman who is speaking is not paying any attention to the motion before the House. Could I have your guidance on whether his rambling remarks are actually in order?

Eleanor Laing: I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making; several of her colleagues have been gesticulating to similar effect. I have been paying careful attention to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I have every confidence that having introduced various other topics about which this debate is not, he is now going to come to the motion before us and the substance of the debate, which is the claim of right.

Douglas Ross: I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am coming to that, but it is important that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland discussed the key issues that we should be debating today.
Before I move on, I will refer to a comment made by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. He said that Conservative Members should be praising the NHS. Well, I would have liked to have a debate about the NHS today, because I am quite happy to praise—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) expresses great displeasure about that, but can she understand my anger today  as the Member of Parliament for Moray who got a phone call from NHS Grampian to be told that for the next 12 to 18 months, because of the way that the SNP has overseen the NHS in Scotland, pregnant women will have to travel to Aberdeen or Inverness to give birth? [Interruption.] That is an important issue, and whether we are in this place or in Holyrood, we should not try to talk—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) should not try to talk me down, for I am standing up for pregnant women who are faced with these concerns.

Joanna Cherry: The hon. Gentleman has just been busy telling us how much he loves this place, but if he wants to debate the state of the Scottish NHS, he should be in the Scottish Parliament. Does he not understand the difference between reserved and devolved powers?

Douglas Ross: Again, this is the reaction we get from the SNP. If we disagree with SNP Members or say something they do not like, we are told that we do not understand things—so I am too thick to understand what is reserved and what is devolved. What I do understand is that I am a representative of my constituency, and when my constituents come to me raising these concerns, I should be able to shout—and loudly shout—about them in this Chamber, as colleagues could in Holyrood.
I will come to what we are debating: the claim of right—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber took 55 minutes to make his speech on this matter and I have eight minutes to make mine. It is important that we consider the motion. The claim of right is very clear and we all support it. It says that the Scottish people are sovereign and can choose the Parliament that best suits their needs. We gave them that opportunity in 2014, when the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and all the other SNP Members campaigned and voted for Scotland to be separated from the rest of the United Kingdom, and I, other Conservative Members, and people across Scotland and the UK, campaigned and voted for Scotland to remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. That decision has been taken. I went into the polling station in Moray and went to the count, knowing, I thought, that it was a once-in-a-generation event, because that was what we were promised by the former leader of the SNP and by its current leader.
But that is not good enough for SNP Members, because they are obsessed by independence. They will only speak about independence. They will not speak about healthcare, about education—about important issues for my Moray constituents and for Scotland. They are talking Scotland down by obsessing about independence rather than standing up for their constituents.

Marion Fellows: Today’s debate is not just important for the people of Scotland, but of great importance to the many peoples and nations throughout the world—notably our friends in Catalonia and the political prisoners there, to whom I would like to pay my respects. At the heart of today’s debate is human rights, and specifically a people’s right  to self-determination. That is enshrined in international law under article 1 of the United Nations charter, which states that one of the purposes of the UN is to
“develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.
I do not believe that anyone in this place—not even Tory Members—would say that Scotland’s people are not a nation. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Scotland’s people and Parliament have the power to decide their own future.
As the motion states—I am speaking to the motion—it is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the
“form of government best suited to their needs”,
and no one else’s right. I respect the opinion of people here who believe that Scotland should remain in the UK, and Scotland did vote to do so, but that was before it voted to remain in the EU. I ask those same people to respect the will of the Scottish people on that matter.

Alistair Carmichael: What Scotland voted for was for the United Kingdom to remain part of the European Union. I campaigned and voted for that, but I did not want to see my vote then used as a lever to break up the United Kingdom. When the hon. Lady tries to do that, she does so not in my name or in the name of the majority of my constituents.

Marion Fellows: The right hon. Gentleman is looking very angrily at me.

Alistair Carmichael: That is just my natural expression; you can’t hold that against me.

Marion Fellows: In that case, I apologise.
We will never agree on this. We are talking about the sovereign right of the Scottish people. I choose not to divide my country. I love my country. When I talk to people in Motherwell and Wishaw, the one thing they say they really love is their Scottish Parliament. That is why we are talking about the claim of right.
We can exchange figures, numbers and percentages, but what is important is that decisions were made by the Scottish people based on the circumstances of the time. That is the very nature of democracy, from elections to referendums. Today’s political reality is that there have been major upheavals to the fundamental political and economic circumstances of modern-day Scotland, and it is on that basis that Scotland must again reconsider its options.
Scotland is at a crossroads. We must decide not only what form of government best suits our needs, but what type of country we are. That discussion is going on in homes, communities and workplaces across Scotland as people slowly but surely decide. People in Scotland see the Prime Minister walking hand in hand with Donald Trump. They see the rich getting richer while their communities and neighbours struggle. They see this place treating Scotland with utter disdain, giving devolution only 15 minutes of consideration—and that time that was totally taken up by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. With foreign wars, nuclear weapons on the Clyde, food bank use through the roof and precarious low-paid employment, people in Scotland imagine something better for their lives which Westminster has failed time and again to deliver: peace, security and more power over the decisions that affect their lives.

Christine Jardine: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Marion Fellows: No, because I have only three minutes left.
Scotland is not a country that is quick to take to the streets, but what the recent independence demonstrations have shown, as have the past demonstrations against Westminster’s poll tax and Thatcher’s decimation of Scottish industry, is that once Scotland has made up its mind, it will continue to pursue its interests in the face of adversity. Anyone who opposes Scotland’s sovereign right is exposing a truth widely held in Scotland, and indeed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, that we are not an equal partner in the UK and that we must ask permission to make our own decisions.

David Mundell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Marion Fellows: I only have three minutes left, so I cannot give way.
Those people are exposing the fact that a democratically elected Parliament’s decision to hold a referendum—the most direct form of democracy imaginable—must be rubber-stamped by Westminster. Anyone who recognises and celebrates the no vote of 2014 but then seeks to undermine Scotland’s sovereignty by discrediting any future vote exposes a crucial contradiction in their argument and does not understand the pride that the Scottish people take in their Parliament.

Christine Jardine: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Marion Fellows: No, I want to finish my speech.

Christine Jardine: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Marion Fellows: No, I am going to continue.
While the UK Government seek to evaporate the Sewel convention and rely on outdated principles of Westminster sovereignty, the people of Scotland will be the ones who decide where their legitimate government and interests lie. No politician, party or Parliament can; this is about the Scottish people. Whatever the outcome of this debate, it will always be the case that Scotland’s sovereignty does not need to be recognised by parties that Scotland rejects or by Westminster; its sovereignty needs to be recognised only by the people of Scotland themselves.
I am sorry that the amendment that was tabled has not been selected, but as the claim of right exists, the only thing that is decisive is the will of the Scottish people as expressed through elections and referendums. That will is fluid and changing. We only need to look at the opinion polls—they have been taken all the way through from 2014—since the Brexit vote. The minority Conservative Government are well aware of those polls. It is undemocratic to bind Scotland or any other country to the decisions of the past in order to protect the interests of the Tory party.

Stephen Kerr: May I begin by quickly repeating how disappointed I was by the performance of the leader of the SNP? I mean that sincerely, because he is someone for whom I have had respect since arriving in this House.
I want to put on the record that I am fully aware that it is the people of Stirling who are my boss. They put me here—and, of course, they can remove me from here—on  the basis of a manifesto that included a commitment from my party to work constructively to see our country progress from being a member of the European Union to leaving the European Union. That is what I am here to do and it is a privilege to do so.
I was reminded earlier today by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—he is not of course in his place—about Adam Smith’s saying on the Union. He described the Union as
“a measure from which infinite good has been derived to this country.”
When he said “this country”, he of course meant Scotland.
Constitutional historians and scholars of religious tumult in 16th-century Scotland will realise that the foundation of the ideas in the claim of right comes from the works of George Buchanan on contractual monarchy. George Buchanan was from Killearn, a village in the west of my constituency and a superb place to visit. I heartily recommend the Three Sisters Bake bakery when Members visit Killearn. I do not know whether it is appropriate to refer to George Buchanan, a deceased person, as my constituent. He is buried in the kirk of Greyfriars in Edinburgh, but he was born, taught and preached in Stirling. In Killearn, there is a monument to its famous son for his work in establishing a constitutional framework for Scotland that would firmly allow the Scots to be governed by Presbyterianism. His assertion, appealing to biblical precedent, was that kings are in a contract with their people, who have a right—nay, a responsibility—to remove irresponsible, ungodly and tyrannical kings, lest the wrath of the Almighty fall upon the people. The great obelisk dominating the Killearn skyline is a testament to this great constitutional theorist, whose thoughts dominated Scottish politics in the 16th and 17th centuries.
These are the thoughts that the writers, preachers and revolutionaries of the Scottish Reformation espoused. Unlike the English, our Reformation was a bottom-up one inspired by the people, rather than a top-down one imposed by a tyrannical Tudor monarch. Preachers such as Knox, Melville and Henderson fought for the idea that the people should be able to set the direction of their country.

Martin Docherty: Given that the hon. Gentleman’s party wishes to take back control from the European Union, why, in doing so, is it giving it to the episcopacy of the Church of England in the House of Lords?

Stephen Kerr: Of course, it is not the 1689 claim of right that is being debated today, but the 1989 one. The two are closely related as they both make reference to sovereignty resting squarely with the people—and I will vote for the motion tonight. These ideas build on the work of George Buchanan and the idea of sovereignty imbued with the righteous principle of vox populi, vox Dei.
The claim of right is specific and relates to the establishment of a Scottish Assembly, as it was then called—a promise delivered by the referendum of 1997, which returned a resounding yes vote. The principle is extendable, but it requires careful consideration. The principle of popular sovereignty must be used carefully. We should always seek to protect the views and interests  of minorities. We do not have to look back very far in our history to see how popular sentiment has been used to justify some of the worst acts of oppression against minorities. Let us not forget the 85% of Scots who opposed the recommendations of the Wolfenden report in 1957, compared with nearly 51% in England. The fear expressed in popular will led to homosexuality in Scotland remaining illegal until 1980.
I belong to a Church that, historically, has seen a great deal of persecution as a result of fear, misunderstanding and prejudice. I understand only too well the prejudices that can be used by politicians to incite bigotry. When politicians feed on our worst fears and play to the crowd, they whip up a monster that is often uncontrollable, and do so with the excuse of projecting the popular will. I saw that last week with bigotry expressed against my constituents, especially those who voted for me, with the so-called All Under One Banner march in Stirling being led by a banner that stated, “Tory Scum Out”. That parade was attended by elected Members of the Scottish Parliament and, I think, of this place, too.

Joanna Cherry: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the majority of Scots in the ’50s opposed the Wolfenden report, and seemed to make that an argument against popular sovereignty. However, did not the majority of Members in this House oppose the emancipation of homosexual men for many years? Was it not human rights that brought about that emancipation and adherence to the convention on human rights, which his party seemed to oppose? It is not about popular sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty—it is about the rule of law.

Stephen Kerr: I think the hon. and learned Lady knows full well the point that I am trying to make. [Interruption.] Well, it should not worry her.
As politicians, it is our job to lead well, not pander to people’s worst instincts, and to protect the principle that minority views and opinions must be respected. We have to remember that we are here, not to follow instructions from our constituents, but to lead. We have to make the case for a better country, a more tolerant country, and a country that respects all. The representative democracy that we have in our country is worth preserving. It is representative democracy that has gone against popular sentiment in leading social change in our country, and long may it continue to do so. However, the popular will must always be in our mind.
Policy making by referendum is impractical. It does not provide an opportunity to secure real social change and poses a risk to the protection of minorities. In the history of our country, we have had an unprecedented number of referendums that have been constitutional in nature. Since 1975, people in Scotland have taken part in six referendums—on Europe; Scotland; Scotland; electoral reform; Scotland; and Europe. In other lands with different constitutional set-ups, referendums are more regular, and more established in constitutional law. The Scottish referendum of 1997 still required a Westminster Act of Parliament to set up the Scottish Parliament.
This House is passing legislation to interpret and undertake the popular instruction to leave the European Union. The principle of respecting the will of the  people is one that I agree with fundamentally. Whether it is the people of the United Kingdom voting to leave the EU, or the people of Scotland voting to keep the United Kingdom together, I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of respecting the will of the people. It is for Government to remember that, and the fact that the SNP Government in Edinburgh are agitating for a second independence referendum is a betrayal of the principle of popular sovereignty. When the people have spoken, as they did, it is time for Government to shut up.
When I speak to people in my constituency, they talk about indyref2 and tell me that they want the SNP to stop talking about that and get on with running the country. When they talk about leaving the EU, they tell me that the Government should get on with it. It is for Government to get on with it. This debate feels like the exact opposite. Debating what to most people are somewhat obscure constitutional matters seems like navel gazing, rather than focusing on the real work of Government. People want Government to work together and they want Government to be effective, so they can get on with their lives unencumbered by constant politics. We need governmental systems that allow for this at all levels of government—Scottish, UK and local government—to work together to build a future for our country.
As I have said many times, Mr Speaker, I am confident that the work of our Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal, by showing a true partnership between Holyrood, Westminster and our local councils, will bear fruit. It will build a common set of economic objectives and do so by people working together. We need similar partnership working to be implemented elsewhere. On policy frameworks, we need systems that allow for decision making without gridlock. We need democratic oversight and efficient government. The rancour and the grievance that is generated by the SNP are unhelpful to all this. This debate is unhelpful to all this.
Let me conclude by saying that this is a debate on an obscure statement that has virtually no impact on the day-to-day lives of the constituents I am here to serve. No doubt many Members will find much to debate and discuss over the constitutional efficacy of the claim of right—whether popular sovereignty is right or wrong, drawing heavily on legal precedent and historical principles—but I would rather focus on improving the lives of my constituents and having a down-to-earth working Government. Let us focus on the pragmatic. Let us focus on getting on with the work of Government. After all, is that not what our constituents would expect of us?

Ian Murray: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr).
At one minute past midnight this morning, the SNP Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), no doubt still up late celebrating England’s win in the World cup, tweeted: breaking news, this is the very first debate we will have in Parliament on the claim of right. He obviously forgot that he had a debate on the claim of right, in his very own name, on 9 September 2016 in Westminster Hall.
I agree with many colleagues across the House that I would rather be speaking here this evening on issues relevant to my constituents and my constituency. The dilution of local policing across Scotland is showing a crime spree of house breaking and car breaking in my constituency. There is a GP crisis in my constituency. People cannot sign up to GPs. They are on waiting lists and are being kicked out of surgeries. People are waiting up to two years for operations when they used to wait only 12 weeks. The train service is in meltdown and we have an economy the Secretary of State was right to say is sluggish.
After all the debates we have had since 2016, and everything in between, we still have no answers to the big questions about what an independent Scotland would look like. We have had a Growth Commission paper that is as big an act of fiction as the original White Paper. I agree with the claim of right. The shadow Secretary of State was right. Labour invented this process and drove it on back in the late 1980s. The late great Jimmy Hood, if he were still alive today, would be championing bringing back the Scottish constitutional convention so we could resolve some of these issues—wouldn’t that be a bundle of fun, with 50-odd Scottish MPs on that particular body?
The claim of right states:
“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government”.
The Scottish people have determined their own form of Government. They determined to vote in 1997 for a Labour Government who promised to bring a referendum on a Scottish Parliament. They voted overwhelmingly to deliver that Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers in the yes-yes vote. In the ballot box since then, they have delivered their sovereign will in choosing what they want to be achieved in terms of Governments and what they want to happen. Interestingly, they also do this at the ballot box for local government elections and lots of other elections.
I get so frustrated about these kinds of debates because it is about the sovereign will of the Scottish people for the Scottish National party, but only when it suits. The sovereign will of the Scottish people was to deliver a Scottish Parliament and stay in the United Kingdom. It was also the sovereign will of the Scottish people to deliver a Scottish Parliament where the Scottish National party does not have a majority, and that Scottish Parliament—if it is the sovereign will of the Scottish people—has over the last few years voted against the Government on fracking, cuts to the national health service, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, council funding, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, failing educational standards and local government cuts. And what has the sovereign will of the Scottish people received in return? Nothing from the Scottish Parliament—disregard the Scottish parliamentary votes; these did not happen; turn the other way; do not implement the will of the Scottish Parliament, which is the will of the Scottish people.
Let me say why it is frustrating that it is about the sovereign will of the Scottish people only when it suits the SNP. Look at local government: it has been completely  and utterly diminished, demoralised and demolished by significant cuts from the Scottish Government, who have passed on 9% or 10% grant cuts from this place and doubled and trebled them for local government.

Stephen Kerr: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the 11 years of the SNP Government of Edinburgh has created a highly centralised state? The power grab that has gone on in Scotland is a grab to the centre by the SNP Government.

Ian Murray: I am glad to have taken that intervention, because it goes to the point—[Interruption.] People can start shouting, “Better Together!”, but I am going to stand up for the people of Scotland and my constituency, because I disagree fundamentally with what the leader of the SNP, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), said during his speech. He does not speak for the people of Scotland. We are entitled to have a different viewpoint. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) is right, because this Chamber, when the Scotland Act 2016 was given its Third Reading and Royal Assent, delivered one of the most powerful Parliaments in the world, but it is the most centralist Parliament in the world. Local government no longer exists in Scotland. It is merely an administrative arm of the Scottish Government.
Look at what we have seen today. An SNP leader of the City of Edinburgh Council wants to be given the powers to deliver a tourist tax in Edinburgh that would help hard-pressed Edinburgh Council ratepayers with all the issues that they are currently going through, and the Cabinet Secretary slaps him down on Twitter and essentially says, “No.” Where is the sovereign will of the Edinburgh people who put Adam McVey in as leader of the council under the single transferable vote system? I do not want an SNP majority-led Edinburgh Council—I want a Labour majority-led council or a Labour council majority in a coalition—but that is what the people delivered. That is the sovereign will of the people who went to the ballot box. I think that we have to reflect—I say this very publicly—on what happened in Aberdeen, when voters went to the ballot box and delivered the numbers in Aberdeen to give us what we have there. There is an incredibly centralist Government and that is why it is the sovereign will of the Scottish people only when it suits.
Let me turn to what the sovereign will of the Scottish people is actually delivering. Again, that only suits the SNP when it suits its case. The SNP refused to back a people’s vote in a referendum on the final deal from the European Union. There will be lots of different views across this Chamber—in fact, there are lots of different views among Labour Members about whether we should have a people’s vote. However, the principle for me is that, if we believe in the sovereign will of the Scottish people, why not back an additional vote for the Scottish people and people across the UK to decide on the final Brexit deal that the UK Government bring back, and then let the sovereign will of the Scottish people decide? No. The SNP reluctantly fudges it and says, “Maybe we would back it, maybe we won’t, but only if independence is on the table as part of it.” It is only the sovereign will of the Scottish people when it suits.
I simply say, on the sovereign will of the Scottish people and the convention, that it is written down. It is being delivered. It has been delivered and everything  that will be delivered in the future, in terms of the sovereign will of the Scottish people, will happen at the ballot box when the people of Scotland go to vote. That is exactly what they have done. Before SNP Members start jumping up and down and saying, “What about the Brexit referendum?”, the rules of the game are as follows. There was a UK-wide referendum. People voted to leave. We are part of the United Kingdom. I hope that we do not leave. I always say, “If we leave the European Union”—I will do everything in my power to try to stop it, and if I cannot stop it, I will do everything in my power to try to soften it, but we are where we are. We cannot pick and choose votes when it suits us to pick and choose.

Luke Graham: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong point about the EU referendum. Does he recognise that it was based on the total number of votes across the United Kingdom, not on geography? So had the SNP joined Britain Stronger in Europe and proactively campaigned for remain, we could have got those few extra votes and kept us in. [Hon. Members: “We did!”] Not as part of Britain Stronger in Europe.

Ian Murray: I am sorry but I am not going to dance to the hon. Gentleman’s tune, because the Conservative party’s attitude towards Scotland at the moment is just as big a threat to the UK. It pushed through a referendum on Brexit, with the former Prime Minister betting everything on winning but losing. The attitude of the Scottish Conservatives is as big a threat to the Union at the moment. They are pushing through a hard Brexit as lobby fodder for the Prime Minister, rather than fighting for the interests of their own constituents. [Interruption.] I am happy for him to gesticulate and say, “Keep attacking the SNP”, but the Government Benches are just as bad on the sovereign will of the Scottish people as expressed at the ballot box. We were promised that Ruth Davidson would send Scottish Conservative MPs down to this Chamber to fight for the interests of Scotland, and not once have any of them taken a different view from the Chief Whip and the Prime Minister. So when Brexit happens and goes badly, you 12 will own it as much as the Prime Minister—sorry, the hon. Gentlemen will own it. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will not own Brexit, because it will be owned primarily by the Scottish Conservatives.
On the theme of it being the sovereign will of the Scottish people only when it suits, I will finish with this. As we discussed, the SNP did not participate in this process, and they had no intention of ever participating in this process, regardless of the warm words we hear now, but now they grab on to this claim of right and talk about the sovereign will of the Scottish people, because it suits the SNP to do so. I suggest, very politely, that the UK Government and the Scottish Government desperately find a way to get around the table to improve the relations between two Governments so that they can at least try to work in the interests of Scotland, because while we have this flag-waving ceremony between the Conservative party and the Scottish National party, it is my constituents who lose out.

Luke Graham: I will try to keep my points succinct tonight.
I think we lose the whole point of this place in some of our debates. It has been said by many Members across the House that we should be talking about the material issues, such as expenditure in Scotland, which we discussed last night in a debate that only two SNP MPs turned up for, or fishing, as others have said, but we are not; instead, we are back to the same old broken record from the SNP. What is really important is the original purpose of this Parliament: the unity of the United Kingdom that started with the vision of a Scottish king and was established in an Act of Union that abolished both the English and the Scottish Parliament and constituted this place, a United Kingdom Parliament where Members from across the entire country work together, pool their resources and make laws together for the benefit of people across the United Kingdom.
As the hundreds of years have passed, we have adapted. We saw that more powers had to be devolved. We have seen that power needs to be closer to the people who every day use the public services and goods being provided. It is disingenuous of SNP Members to say that somehow Scotland’s voice is not heard here. It is heard through their voices, through Conservative Members’ voices and through those of Liberal Democrat and Labour Members; it is heard right around this House—because this Parliament is Scotland’s Parliament as much as Holyrood is. That needs to be recognised.
My constituents need to stop being bullied by the SNP and pushed to make a choice between being Scottish and being British. They can be proud to be both, and they can have confidence in both their Parliaments to deliver their public services. I will take no lectures from the SNP about centralisation and ignoring the will of the people. A model diagram of centralisation is Edinburgh, where powers and moneys have been stripped away from our local councillors. We have record budget deficits in spite of underspends in the central Scottish budget, which in my constituency means music tuition being cut, health boards being stretched and public services suffering. And that is not because of Westminster; it is because of the Scottish National party. In fact, it should change its name. It is not the Scottish National party; it is the selfish National party. It has one reason for existing, and that is separation and division.
We are the Conservative and Unionist party. We have delivered on devolution, as we always promised, and we have stood up in this Chamber and challenged our own Ministers, as other Members have, on issues such as the EU to make sure we get the right deal on EU citizens, for example, or on the economic trade deal—and we will see how that comes out in October.
When we talk about devolution, we have to look at virtually every single policy area that has been devolved. After 20 years of devolution and 11 years of SNP management, every core area is underperforming. In education, we have gone from first to third in the United Kingdom, yet schools are still cascading through international rankings. In health, even after 20 years of devolution, we still have the lowest life expectancy in the United Kingdom.

Joanna Cherry: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the verdict of the BBC that Scotland under an SNP Government has the best-performing NHS in the United Kingdom?

Luke Graham: No, because it is still facing problems.

Stephen Kerr: It has missed six of its seven targets.

Luke Graham: Exactly—and it has missed its mental health targets.
Let the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) say that to the consultants. Let her say that to the constituents who have come to me because they cannot have certain kinds of surgery in Scotland that they can have in England. This is not just about saying, “England is worse than us, so we must be amazing.” There are challenges throughout the United Kingdom, and that is the point of this place. We pull together when there are common challenges, but we also deliver locally when we need to.
A lot is being said about respect tonight—about respect for the Scottish people. What I cannot understand is the fact that SNP Members do not respect this Parliament. They certainly do not respect my constituents, and I have to say that I do not think they respect themselves. That is clear from their conduct in the last weeks. They have walked out during Prime Minister’s Question Time, and have deliberately agitated in the Chamber. Some of that conduct may well have taken place on both sides of the House, and it should be condemned on both sides if it is. Such incidents do no credit to any hon. Members, but they are being led by the Scottish National party.

David Linden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Luke Graham: Not just now, thank you.
If SNP Members were genuine in their love and their care for Scotland, they would not be agitating for a second independence referendum now, when Brexit has not even been decided. If they really cared about Scotland, they would wait until the deal is done, and until we were very clear about the situation and what the Government had achieved for the United Kingdom, and then take a cold, hard look at the analysis and ask themselves, “Actually, are we better off in the United Kingdom, or are we better off breaking out of the United Kingdom and splitting into a separate country?”

Simon Hoare: I am listening to the debate as a fellow Celt who represents an English seat. My hon. Friend has mentioned the word “respect”. I am intervening on his speech, but I could have intervened on anyone’s. We see rampant nationalism and nastiness all over Europe and elsewhere. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best advertisement for this place, and for democracy, is for all of us, irrespective of our differences, to show respect and regard for each other? That, unfortunately, has always seemed to be missing over the last few months in any debate on anything to do with Scotland.

Luke Graham: My hon. Friend has made a very valid point from another part of this United Kingdom. It is not just Scotland that will be watching the debate this evening; more than 800,000 Scots residing in other parts of the United Kingdom will be watching it too—as well as English, Welsh and Northern Irish people, and members of all the many other nationalities who live in the UK. For all British citizens, this is their Parliament. They are the ones who elect us, and they are the ones who pay our wages. I think that respect should be given  by both parties throughout the UK to our individual constituents, but also to those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There has been talk of hope. SNP Members have said, “What exactly could we be if Scotland were free of this horrific United Kingdom? We would be able to achieve so much more without it.” I remind them that it is this place that delivers on hope. It is this place that established the national health service—the national health service that SNP Members now stand up and try to criticise, or indeed champion, was set up in this Chamber. [Interruption.] I am talking about this Chamber. We can debate whether things happened or not, but it is the output that matters.
We established the NHS in this Chamber. We established the welfare state in this Chamber. And, as we heard from another Secretary of State today, we are delivering international aid by pooling our resources—Scots, English, Welsh, northern Irish and everyone else. We are delivering for other countries around the world, and that is all through this Chamber. I will no longer sit here and listen to SNP Members do down the United Kingdom—do down Scotland’s Parliament—and say that we do not have a place in it. We do. We are here, and so are the Opposition, and we are here to represent our constituents and make sure that we pull together and contribute.

Alan Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the legislation he is talking about was voted in in the 1940s here because there was not a Scottish Parliament, and there was not a Scottish Parliament because the Conservatives consistently voted against home rule?

Luke Graham: Perhaps I need to go back to the history lesson I gave at the beginning of this speech. There was not a Scottish Parliament because a Scottish king decided to unify the Crowns to make one United Kingdom, and then a voluntary Act of Union abolished both Scottish and English Parliaments and made this place. [Interruption.] Sorry, that is the historical fact. We are a unitary state with, under our current constitution, Westminster as the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. That is why we have directly elected Members to this Parliament and that is why there are such hotly contested debates around the time of a general election in Scotland—because people know how important it is. They know they are sending Members to Westminster, they know the influence they will have, and they know the difference they can make. I say to the hon. Gentleman that he must not do down my constituents and the energy they put into voting at a general election, because we matter, the Scottish Parliament matters, and so do our local authorities.
We are looking at a 21st century world: we are racked with challenges from climate change to technological developments to international fracture from various countries all around the world. Would it not be great if somehow we could look to a place that would bring neighbours together, enable us to pool our resources, decide how to advance our NHS and our welfare, make sure we get £20 billion extra for the NHS, and make sure we forward the cause of science and international diplomacy and international aid? We have it: it is this Parliament; it is this United Kingdom. That is what we have been sent here to represent, and that is what we will continue to fight for on this side of the House.

Martin Docherty: Since the principal creation of this political state in 1707—not through the Union of the Crowns in 1603—between the nation of Scotland and England and its subsequent expansion through the Acts of Union of 1800 with the nation of Ireland and the subsequent changes through the articles of agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and Ireland signed on 6 December 1921, as well as the creation of the three devolved Administrations—Wales, Northern Ireland and of course Scotland—there can be no doubt, and I think there is agreement, that the political structure of these islands and the political relationships within this present political state, and, yes, even through the Good Friday agreement with the Irish state, is a fluid and ever-changing story. Therefore it should come as no surprise that this debate should be brought to the Floor of the House tonight. Indeed, the premise of the sovereign rights of the Scottish nation founded in its citizens is an agreed reality, given that this House recognised that position through the right of the Scottish nation to participate in the referendum of 2014.
The former right hon. Member for Finchley went even further: in her memoirs “The Downing Street Years”, the former Premier, whom I never thought I would quote, was clear. [Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen to this. She wrote that if the Tory party
“sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation”—
not my words—
“with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far, they have exercised that right by joining and remaining”—
even in 2014—
“in the Union.”
The former right hon. Member for Finchley continued:
“Should they determine on independence, no English party of politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.”
There will be many on both sides in this Chamber, including myself, who will be uncomfortable quoting the former right hon. Member for Finchley, but the late Baroness’s quote illustrates the reality of the constitutional position of this existing political state. The reality of the claim of right—which, I must say, was written in 1988—is another example of the expression of that self-evident truth, acknowledging as it does the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. It is a principle well-versed and affirmed in ancient right that neither monarch nor Parliament, not one individual or a select collective, has dominion over the people that is the nation that is Scotland.
Now more than ever, the importance of at least Scottish constituency MPs—I would be grateful, if there is a Division this evening, to see Members from across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—reaffirming that long-held ancient principle is critical, given that the nation of Scotland, including my own constituency, which also voted for the liberation  and regaining of the sovereignty of the nation of Scotland, is now being dragged out of the family of European nations.
In looking at the critical facts relating to centralisation and Scotland, and to the historical narrative, Members who have not been in local government in Scotland should be reminded that the last reform of local government in Scotland was of course led by the Government of the United Kingdom, when they rearranged the local governance of Scotland. The Government of Scotland was established through the devolved settlement, and it was the present Scottish Government that set out the concordat and the existing relationships with local government, supported the length and breadth of Scottish local government through COSLA. For those Members who do not know what COSLA means, it is the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I am not going to take up any more time, except to mention a basic principle. This place, no matter how much Members love it, should never seek to limit those constitutional realities, whether they agree with them or not. This place must clearly understand that, no matter what is said or done, Scotland is, today and forever, a nation—a distinct, proud, historic nation, free and able to direct its governance and destiny.

Jamie Stone: I have enjoyed the debate this evening very much indeed, particularly the scholarly dissertation given by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes). The subject tonight is the claim of right for Scotland, and let me put it on record right away that I stand full square with the claim of right. I may be many things, and they say that pride is one of the seven deadly sins, but I take pride in my involvement in Scottish affairs over the years. I am one of six Members in this place who has also served in Holyrood. I had the honour to represent Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for 12 years in Holyrood, and it was the making of my life. I look back on those days with pleasure and as something I can tell my children and grandchildren about in the years to come. I hate to talk about pride, but I am proud of that.
Let me give the House an example. In my garden, I have a big piece of Kemnay granite, which is one of the types of stone that the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood is built from. When the building was completed, the builders very kindly gave me one leftover piece of Kemnay granite and it now stands in my garden. I was involved in building the physical structure of the Scottish Parliament, as the Secretary of State will recall, along with Linda Fabiani, who is now Deputy Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, and John Home Robertson, who once graced the Labour Benches in this place. It was not an easy task. We had the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune coming at us all the time, which made us good friends, but I take pride in the fact that the building is our Parliament in Scotland, and I think they do as well.
I also served on the Scottish Constitutional Convention, of which mention has already been made this evening. As one of the local authority reps on the convention, I represented what was then Ross and Cromarty District Council. Believe it or not when looking at this aged frame, I was the youngest member from the highlands—a callow youth—but I feel that I made my contribution nevertheless.
Against that background, I turn again to the subject before us: the claim of right. While I have enjoyed the contributions of the SNP Members on the Benches in front of me, I cannot help but wonder why the claim is being used as the peg on which to hang today’s hat, because that gives me some trouble. Earlier on, mention was made of the fact that the SNP would not sign up to the Scottish Constitutional Convention. In fairness to SNP Members, their reason was that it did not include the independence option, and I accept that argument. Nevertheless, as somebody who worked hard on the constitutional convention, which involved difficult times, and on getting the scheme for the Scottish Parliament together, I greatly regret that the SNP did not take part. I must remind Members that there were times when Alex Salmond, a former Member of this place, was not unknown to make disparaging comments about the work of the constitutional convention, and I also regret that.
The inevitable logical follow-on from all that was that the SNP did not sign the claim of right. To me, the claim of right is one of the most important documents in recent Scottish history. The Chamber will not know this, but—I have already talked about my pride—my greatest pride is in the fact that my name is on that claim of right. No other Member of this place can say that, but I can, and I am not going to give away my pride in that fact for anything. I am therefore saddened that the claim of right, a document with which I am associated and in which the people of Scotland and I take great pride, is being used for the purposes of this debate. I say with respect to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) that it demeans him and cheapens the tone of the debate, and I wish it were not so. I will leave my contribution there.

Patrick Grady: It is quite useful for me to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), whom I congratulate on his distinction of being one of the few signatories to the claim of right who is still here. Picture the scene: the economy on the brink of recession; the Government hopelessly divided on Europe; the Labour party in turmoil; a woman Prime Minister in Downing Street; and Scotland living under yet another Conservative Government it did not vote for, pushing through damaging social policies against the will of the vast majority of Scottish people and parliamentarians. That was the situation in 1989, when the claim of right was signed and when the snowball of devolution that led to the Scottish Parliament began to gather speed. However, the more things change, the more they stay the same—but Scotland has changed and the United Kingdom has changed.
Like many others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made the point that for the 15 hours when the polls were open on 18 September 2014 Scotland truly was exercising its sovereignty as a true free independent country. The future of our governance was in our hands and nobody else’s, and that is why we would have been happy to accept the amendment had it been selected by the Chair.
A decision was made, and of course we on the SNP Benches were disappointed that Scotland voted to remain in the Union, but voters were repeatedly told during the 2014 referendum that a no vote was not a vote for the status quo and that choosing to stay in the Union would bring about a new relationship in which Scotland would lead the UK, not leave the UK. A vow was made to deliver something as near to federalism as possible, and a guarantee was given that Scotland would remain a member of the European Union. Nearly four years on from that independence referendum, none of those promises has been kept.
There may have been a new status quo on the morning of 19 September 2014, but there was also a new status quo on the morning of 24 June 2016, when the United Kingdom for which people in Scotland voted ceased to exist. People in Scotland voted in 2014 for a United Kingdom that would be, and would remain, a member of the European Union; a United Kingdom that would guarantee people in Scotland freedom of movement for themselves and their goods, for their capital and their services, across the continent.
We were told by no less than Ruth Davidson herself, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, that the way for Scotland to stay in the European Union was to vote no in 2014, and that has been ripped like a rug from under the feet of the people of Scotland. That is why there has been a material change in circumstances, and that is why it is right that this House now comes to recognise the sovereign right of the people of Scotland.

Stephen Kerr: I am struck by the sincerity and passion of the speech by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who said he wonders why the claim of right is being discussed now and why it is being used as a peg to hang a hat on. Will the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who is a figure of authority in the parliamentary Scottish National party, confirm that it is not the intention of the SNP in government in Scotland to move our country to an illegal referendum, that this debate is not an excuse and that the SNP is not looking to create a pretext for an illegal referendum?

Patrick Grady: The fact is that the Scottish Parliament was re-elected in 2016 and a new Scottish Government were formed with a mandate to reserve the right to request an independence referendum if there is a material change in circumstances. That request was made. A request for a section 30 order was agreed by a majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament, and that request is extant—it is still there. The First Minister said the request had been put on pause as a result of the 2017 UK general election, but the result of that general election was to return a majority of Members from Scotland who support independence and who, at the very least, support the right of the people of Scotland to choose.
Something interesting has happened in this debate, because the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Conservative colleagues have said, with a shrug of the shoulders, “Of course we accept this motion,” as if it is not that big a deal. In 2012, Ruth Davidson and her Conservative colleagues were the only party actively to vote against the claim of right for Scotland when it was put to the Scottish Parliament. Although we hear from Liberal Democrat Members that the SNP did not sign  the claim of right in 1989, for reasons that are well rehearsed, it was endorsed by Scotland’s Parliament in 2012 and the Scottish Conservatives actively refused to sign it at that point.

David Mundell: rose—

Patrick Grady: If the Secretary of State will tell me what has changed and why the Conservative party is now prepared to assent to the claim of right, I will be happy to take an intervention.

David Mundell: I will just set out the evidence that it is always a matter of grievance. The grievance now is that we are supporting their motion. If we had not supported the motion, that would have been the grievance. This is not about the claim of right; it is about building grievance so they can build their case for independence.

Patrick Grady: As the Government have committed to producing a statement within 30 days of an Opposition motion being carried, we will no doubt hear that the motion is not binding, and this and that and all the rest. The Government can decide whether they want to accept the motion but, if what the Secretary of State and his Conservative colleagues are saying is correct, this sovereign Parliament is going to accept the principle of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland.
I am surprised that some of the Brexiteers who want to take back control, the hon. Members for the 18th and 19th centuries, have not come along this evening to defend their cherished and beloved parliamentary sovereignty. Perhaps it is because they cannot. As we saw during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it is not this House that is taking back control; it is the Executive who are taking back control. The power grab is not simply the one from the Scottish Parliament; it is also the power grab from this House, with the statutory instruments, the delegated authority and the ministerial fiat—

Deidre Brock: Diktat.

Patrick Grady: And diktat. This has been grabbed and taken by the content of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. That is the real power grab that is going on and it undermines the sovereignty not just of the people of Scotland, but of the Westminster Parliament as it has been traditionally seen. We have heard from all these different Members asking why the SNP has not brought up this, that or the next thing. We talk on a daily basis about the issues that affect our constituents and the people of Scotland. Members talk about yesterday’s estimates debate, but I say to the shadow Secretary of State that no Labour Member from Scotland was taking part in that debate, even though it was a debate on the devolution spend and the Barnett consequentials.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned my Westminster Hall debate. I was proud to lead a debate on the claim of right in Westminster Hall, but that debate was on a motion saying “That this House has considered”. Today’s debate is on an actionable, votable motion and the Government have indicated, for the first time, that they are prepared to accept it.

Ian Blackford: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. If the Government accept this motion tonight, are they not then accepting the principle of the sovereignty  of the Scottish people? If that follows, and if the Scottish Government have a majority and a mandate to ask for a referendum on a change of circumstances, are the Conservatives opposite not duty bound to follow that and make sure the Government push through a section 30 licence?

Patrick Grady: Precisely. [Interruption.] The Minister will have a chance to respond and sum up at the end of the debate. This is why the Government have to—

Lesley Laird: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that no Labour Member was present or spoke during the estimates debate. As he will of course know, I was sitting on the Front Bench and I am unable to intervene in that debate in that way.

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Lady has put that on the record and I am sure everyone in here will accept it.

Patrick Grady: Yes, that is a very helpful statement of fact but it does not change the reality of the situation: nobody from the Scottish Labour Benches spoke. I simply say that some of the partisanship that has been shown in this House is not ideal, because we make no special claim to the claim—

Hugh Gaffney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to point out, for the record, that I did speak in that debate yesterday—I made an intervention.

Rosie Winterton: The point of order should be addressed to me. I will respond again by saying that the hon. Gentleman has put what happened on the record and made it very clear. I will also say that the debate is coming to a close and other people wish to speak, so I urge Members not to have endless points of order.

Patrick Grady: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. They come here and complain that we want to talk about process and that we are obsessed with individual constitutional issues, and then that is what we get.
When the Scottish Parliament debated and adopted the claim of right in 2012, it did not endorse, and it was not being asked to endorse, the principle of independence; it was asked to acknowledge the principle of deciding on independence. So the claim of right is not just an historical document, a scholarly debating point or an “obscure document”, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) said; it is a fundamental principle on which our democracy rests. The UK Government, in accepting this tonight, are making a serious and important point about maintaining the Union as a partnership of equals—they need to understand that.
In closing, we, and this Tory Government in particular, should reflect on the famous words of the convenor of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, Canon Kenyon Wright, who said at the opening of the convention:
“What if that other voice we all know so well responds by saying, ‘We say no, and we are the state’? Well, we say yes—and we are the people.”

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: I am afraid I am going to have now to impose a six-minute time limit. I call Patricia Gibson.

Patricia Gibson: I am delighted to speak in this debate on the claim of right for Scotland, which asserts the sovereignty of the Scottish people, declaring their right to determine the form of government that best suits their needs. This is a timely debate, although I know some people in the Chamber have questioned why we are debating this issue. This debate could not be more timely, because we need to do all we can to ensure that the wishes of the people of Scotland are respected. Twenty years into devolution, the Scottish Parliament’s powers are under threat from a power grab by the party that fought tooth and nail against the very establishment of that Parliament and has never fully got behind it or truly believed in it.
I am not going to talk about independence, because the Tories and the Labour party have talked about nothing else—and they accuse us of being obsessed. They can talk about independence, as they do incessantly, but I remind them that in 2016 the SNP Government got a mandate to hold a referendum, given the material change in circumstances. If they are so concerned about the will of the people, perhaps they should reflect on that.
We had a referendum in Scotland on EU membership, but there was no evidence that the people of Scotland wanted one. We in Scotland voted to remain in the EU by a very convincing majority, and we are now being removed against our will from a family of nations of which we wish to remain a part. We have been told by those on the Government Benches that we should wait to see how Brexit unfolds. Let us look at how Brexit is unfolding. The Chancellor disagrees with the Foreign Secretary; the Foreign Secretary disagrees with the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister disagrees with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Secretary of State for International Trade has his head stuck firmly in the sand and says it is all going well and there is nothing to see here, so just move along; and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union does not seem to know how final the final deal on Brexit will be. All that is before we even get to this week’s antics, in which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) was involved. Members think that we should wait to see to see how Brexit is unfolding; I think we should buy some popcorn, if it were not so serious.
We have heard the Secretary of State unable, or perhaps unwilling, to explain why the Tories are now to support the claim of right but could not support it in 2012. With the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in the teeth of opposition from the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and the withholding of consent for that Bill from every political party, save the out-of-touch Tories, the contempt for Scotland, her people and her democratic institutions is as clear as it can be.
Let us talk about the claim of right. Consent for clause 15 of the withdrawal Bill was withheld by a huge majority in Holyrood of 93 votes to 30. As a consequence, as we know, it should not have passed through this  House with that clause intact. In the event, it did remain intact, with a mere 19 minutes allocated for debate, and with not one Scottish MP able or permitted to speak. And Members ask why we are debating the claim of right. They should be ashamed of themselves. When they ignore the entire concept of consent, when they ride roughshod over democratic institutions elected by the people of Scotland—remember, the Tories have not won an election in Scotland for 55 years—and when they ride roughshod over the Scottish people and their will, they do so at their peril.
We have heard about the affect for the Scottish Parliament and the esteem in which it is held; Westminster enjoys no such reputation in Scotland. We have repeatedly heard the powers that are being clawed back by this Government being diminished, but Government Members know exactly how important those powers are. They include agriculture, fisheries, food labelling and public procurement. I remind Government Members that the public are watching. The clawing back of powers over public procurement could constitute an attack on our public services. I have listened to MPs in the Tory ranks rubbishing such concerns; their constituents will have something to say about that.
I know all this is inconvenient for those who oppose the very concept of devolution, and who want to deny Scotland’s very nationhood. They wish us pesky Scots would stop using our voices to decry the injustices and acts of contempt being perpetrated on Scotland, but we will not go quietly. Tonight, we reassert the claim of right for Scotland, without apology, despite all the blistering attacks from the Government Benches. Scotland is watching. I say to Government Members: you are swimming against the tide of history and you will soon find yourselves engulfed in the waves.

Martin Whitfield: It is a great pleasure to discuss this matter and to contribute to this debate. The concept of the claim of right dates back to the Claim of Right Act 1689, which referred then to the right of appeal to the sovereign and the monarch against perceived judicial injustice. The 1689 Act gave access to the then Parliament of Scotland where the monarch in Parliament sat. The Act of Union 1707 led to the abolition of the Parliament of Scotland and the right then transferred to the House of Lords, which is now, of course, the United Kingdom Supreme Court. The concept of that right was taken by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 to grant the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. The idea itself dates back to the thinking of my predecessor, J. P. Mackintosh, an honourable Member of this House who died far too young, 40 years ago this month.
The claim of right draws on the principle of empowering communities, and it is a criticism only of Governments that they appear far too happy to accept new powers, but are very reluctant to pass them on downwards to their communities, to the local authorities and even lower.
The claim of right has developed into the devolution debate that we have heard today. Again, my predecessor, J. P. Mackintosh, shared with his great friend, Donald Dewar, a passionate commitment to the cause of Scottish devolution. As Donald Dewar said, articulating  Mackintosh’s view, devolution is, at its core, about democratic control. It is the empowering of people; it is not for the nationalistic glorification of the nation state. He said:
“It was never Scotland right or wrong…it is about good government, an equitable democracy that borrows, elevates and creates opportunity for the citizen.”
It is the idea of a union state made stronger by the diversity of its communities and constituent parts rather than creeping uniformity. The shouts of, “Conform! Conform!”, implying that it should all be put in a meat mincer so that it all looks the same, should be battled against.

Paul Sweeney: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that very important point. Is not the reality in practice that this Parliament, far from being at odds with the principles of the claim of right, has actually energised and activated the claim of right by repeatedly using the practice of devolving powers down through numerous examples over the past 50 years from the European economic area to the devolution referendums of recent years?

Martin Whitfield: I am grateful for that intervention. It is right to say that powers have gone down, but, too often, powers stick in one place instead of being handed down. We can look at the crisis in our local authorities in Scotland where they have had powers taken back into centralised Government.
We stand here today between a party whose sole aim is a nationalistic independence of flag waving and shouting and a party which, with all respect, failed to see the true potential of devolution. I am talking about the goal of a stronger, kinder Union, a fairer Union in which our communities have a stake not just in the results of a decision but also in the decision-making power. We live in a time of world challenges. A choice was made to stand differently from Europe. It is a decision that saddens me, but it is one that I respect. None the less, we must still stand as part of Europe. The claim of right does not underpin a set type of governance; it is a reality that the form of governance should be influenced by and borrowed from, and it should elevate and create opportunities for the citizens that sign up to it. These words by J. P. Mackintosh stand in testament to the fluid ideas that underpin the demands of a citizen:
“It is not beyond the wit of man to devise institutions to meet these demands.”

Joanna Cherry: Earlier in this debate, I intervened on the Secretary of State for Scotland to ask him whether he supported the principle of self-determination in article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, and I was very pleased that he said that he did. For those who need reminding, this is what article 1 says:
“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
We have this motion today because of what has occurred since the people of Scotland last voted in relation to their self-determination, which was the Brexit vote in 2014, because the implications of Brexit for Scotland’s economic, social and cultural development are enormous.  That is why we wish to reassert today the right of the Scottish people to self-determination.
It has been very pleasing that there have been a number of significant concessions from other parties during the course of this debate. The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said that he accepts the sovereignty of the Scottish people. I am sure that that may come as a surprise to some of his colleagues from English constituencies who are not here this evening and who so often tell us that it is this Parliament and this Parliament alone that is sovereign, but he has made that concession so that is one concession from the Government Benches.

Douglas Ross: Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

Joanna Cherry: I will take an intervention in a moment.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) has said that he will vote for this motion tonight. I was delighted to hear that and I very much hope that all his colleagues will go through the Lobby to vote for the motion. The support for this principle will become very important when the First Minister of Scotland once again approaches the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom looking for a section 30 order.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird), who speaks for the official Opposition, also made an important concession, if I heard her correctly. I think that she said that if there was a mandate for another independence referendum in Scotland, she would support it. Well, that is very good. In fact, it is music to my ears because there is already a mandate for another independence referendum in Scotland. It comes from the democratically elected Scottish Parliament in which, in the light of the Brexit vote, the SNP and the Greens together voted to give the First Minister of Scotland a mandate—[Interruption.] Let me finish my point. The SNP and the Greens voted to give the First Minister of Scotland a mandate to request from this Government a section 30 order to hold another independence referendum. If Government Members and Labour Members have not twigged already, let me spell it out for them: that is what this motion is about tonight. It is about protecting the right of the Scottish people to take necessary steps to protect themselves from the consequences of Brexit because, unlike the people’s vote, the vote for a second independence referendum in Scotland already has a mandate. That is a distinction that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the Lib Dems, who are no longer in their place, do not seem to understand.
Before I go any further, I want to take this opportunity to defend our group leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). There has been a concerted attempt by Conservative Members this evening to assassinate his character by putting into Hansard allegations about him that cannot be upheld. Madam Deputy Speaker, I note that neither you, nor anyone else in the Chair this evening, has ruled his conduct disorderly. In speaking up passionately for the viewpoint of the Scottish National party, he is simply exercising his mandate and doing his job. In so doing, he has our support, the support of his constituents and the support of the Scottish National party.

Douglas Ross: The hon. and learned Lady mentioned what Conservative Members had said and put into  Hansard. Will she accept that what I said about the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber was that he made it all far too personal—that he was playing the man, rather than the ball—and that if SNP Members really want to have a constitutional debate in which they engage people from all sides, they have to stop these petty attacks on individuals?

Joanna Cherry: Yes, I did hear the hon. Gentleman say that, but I do not accept that he was right. I suggest that he gets a mirror and looks in it more often, because it is he and his colleagues from Scotland who have been playing the man, not the ball.
This debate—as well as the debate around Brexit and Scottish independence—is really about what it means to be an independent nation in the modern world. People often ask why the Scottish National party wants to leave the United Kingdom but stay in the European Union. The answer is very simple. We do not have to look very far to see an example of what it is to be a partner in the European Union, as opposed to what it is to be a member nation in the UK. Just look across the Irish sea to Ireland, and see the treatment that the Republic of Ireland has received from the European Union. Ireland’s economic and social considerations are put at the heart of the negotiations by the EU27. Contrast that with the economic and social concerns of Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland, which both voted to remain but whose concerns are utterly sidelined. In Scotland’s case, we were given a total of 19 minutes to debate amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, accompanied by much sneering and condescension from the Government Benches when SNP MPs dared to protest. I would say to Conservative Members that their sneering and condescension is not a good look.

Simon Hoare: rose—

Joanna Cherry: No, I will not give way—I want to develop my point.
I ask Conservative Members to reflect on the impression that their behaviour is likely to have on voters in Scotland when, as seems likely—for the reasons admirably adumbrated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson)—the current Tory Government collapse under the weight of their own divisions and are forced to go to the country again in another general election. I suggest to Conservative Members that their role as Lobby fodder, and the way in which they have sneered and condescended when SNP Members have attempted to protest about the lack of time given in this Chamber to the impact of Brexit on devolution, will not serve them well.
The disparity between the treatment of the Republic of Ireland within the European Union and the treatment of Scotland within the United Kingdom illustrates very clearly why I and my colleagues and wish to leave the Union of the UK but remain within the European Union.

Simon Hoare: rose—

Bill Grant: rose—

Joanna Cherry: No, I am not going to give way—I do not have long left.
The European Union is a union of equals. The United Kingdom is not a union of equals, because Scotland is not treated as an equal partner within it. We want to be in a union where we are an equal partner. [Interruption.]
If Conservative Members would just for a moment stop trying to shout me down, I want to finish by answering a point made by the Secretary of State for Scotland when he said that the Sewel convention was a pillar of the devolution settlement. I suggest to him that the insertion of the word “normally” put a pretty big crack in that pillar. I would like to leave him with this thought: if he was building a house to live in, would he build it on top of a pillar that only normally stood up?

Hugh Gaffney: Today I have been dealing with the death of a young constituent, Alesha MacPhail. I offer my condolences and support to her family and friends at this dark time.
I have been in a meeting of the Scottish Affairs Committee dealing with very important issues around immigration, and I have been making representations to Ministers on the future of our trading policy if and when we are able to negotiate a deal to leave the European Union. Those important issues have an impact on the day-to-day goings on of the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, people across Scotland, and indeed people across the United Kingdom. They are far more important than the narrow obsession with constitutional issues that seems to occupy SNP Members.
I am firmly of the view that the people of Scotland are sovereign—they have the ultimate say; they are our boss—and that the people of Scotland have the right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. That is a principle I believe in and, importantly, it is a fundamental principle that the Labour party is very proud of. It was a Labour Government who restored power to the people of Scotland, and it was a Labour Government who allowed the people of Scotland to vote in Scottish Parliament elections and to elect a Scottish Government. In September 2014, that principle was honoured. The people of Scotland decided that our country was stronger together, and the values and objectives of the Union were held together. My socialism has no borders.
The motion asks us to endorse the principles of the claim of right as it was endorsed in 1989. I just wonder if any SNP Members could remind us how many members of the SNP signed the claim of right in 1989. In fact, only two parties did not sign the claim of right—the actual Tories and the tartan Tories. I say to SNP Members that if they wanted to demonstrate their commitment to standing up for Scotland, they should have chosen another topic, because their record on this issue is not strong.
The House will be interested to know that the claim of right was signed in 1989 by all Labour MPs, with the exception of Tam Dalyell. The Tories did not sign up to the Scottish constitutional convention or the claim of right because they were opposed to devolution, and the SNP did not sign up to the Scottish constitutional convention or the claim of right because independence was not considered.
The people of Scotland are tired of constitutional debates. They want the Governments here and in Holyrood to work together. A Labour-led Government in Scotland and in Westminster will do that. I welcome the opportunity to remind the House of my belief in the people of Scotland, and my passion for representing and standing up for them. That means focusing on jobs, welfare and Europe, and ensuring that the people of Scotland do not pay the price for the Tories in London and the SNP in Scotland.

Tommy Sheppard: I find it rather interesting that, in the course of a debate of almost three hours, we have not heard anyone speak against the notion of the claim of right. However, I caution colleagues against being deluded by any faux agreement on this matter, because I am confident that many Members who are not in the Chamber tonight would find it presumptuous that a group of citizens in one part of this island should assert the claim to be able to control their own destiny. They would do that because they regard this as a single nation, and they regard the people of Scotland, while important, as having no other rights than the people of the west midlands or East Anglia.
I am pleased that most contributors to the debate have realised that the basis of our constitution is different from that. We may have a single polity, but we have a multinational country that is based on serial Acts of Union that bring its component parts together. Once we understand that, the claim of right has to be the intellectual corollary of that position. A Union can be maintained only by consent, and if the people of Scotland do not give their consent to maintaining it, it will naturally fall.
The idea of popular sovereignty for the people of Scotland is quite old fashioned. In two years, we will celebrate the 700th anniversary of the declaration of Arbroath, and that document is worth looking at. It was in fact a letter from the nobles of Scotland to the then Pope to ask him to intervene. Much of the language is archaic, and much of it is reverential, but in that document is the grain of something that was never before expressed. It says clearly that if the King of Scotland does not represent the wishes of the people, the people will find themselves a King who will. It is the first expression in modern times of the notion of popular sovereignty.
That idea has ebbed and flowed over the seven centuries in between. Three hundred years ago, it inspired the dissenters who were resisting the fledgling Union because they felt it was a matter of being sold out by the Scottish aristocracy. Two hundred years ago, it fuelled the friendly societies and people such as Thomas Muir who were working for popular democracy and universal franchise. One hundred years ago, it motivated the Red Clydesiders and people such as John Maclean. The idea of Scottish popular sovereignty has been consistent throughout the centuries, but never more so than the present day, and never more so than 20 years ago, when the Scotland Act 1998, for the first time in all those centuries, actually asked the people what form of government they would like. A massive majority of them—three quarters—voted to establish the Scottish Parliament.
We are having this debate about the claim of right for Scotland because we believe that the devolution settlement  is very much under threat, and we wish to alert the House and the country to what is going on. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that there is no power grab, but in fact a powers bonanza. In a previous debate, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) listed a whole range of things that would become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament after Brexit. However, we misunderstand if we think that responsibility is the same as power. At the same time as those areas of responsibility are being transferred to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Parliament’s ability to do anything about them is being limited and constrained like never before. It is intended that so many areas—not just the ones transferring from Brussels, but those that are currently the exclusive competence of the Scottish Parliament—will in future be subject to UK-wide frameworks.
We do not yet have an idea—I see that today’s fisheries White Paper does not have an idea—of exactly how those frameworks will work. We have so far been talking about the principle, but it is the principle that is important. If we picture a UK-wide committee to talk about fishing policy, the interests of Scottish fishermen would be represented by the Scottish Government, and likewise for the Welsh and Northern Irish, but who will speak for the fishermen of England? That will be the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—a Department in Westminster. At the same time, if there is a divergence of opinion or a difference of view, DEFRA will determine what actually happens. That is not a partnership; it means that the devolved Administrations will be subject to and subservient to the will of the majority. The Secretary of State may say that Scotland is part of the UK, but I tell him that Scotland is not part of England, although that is in effect what such an arrangement would lead to.

David Duguid: I would like to take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s statement about Scotland not being part of England, given that in fact Scotland has never been—certainly in the life of this Parliament—part of England, and that was not what the Secretary of State said.

Tommy Sheppard: I think that the hon. Gentleman might have prepared that better. The point I was making is that, in effect, such an arrangement will make Scotland—and Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter—subservient to the will of the Government in this place, which is contrary to the whole spirit of devolution.
Twenty years ago, when the architects of devolution—Donald Dewar in this place, and John Sewel in the other—were framing the proposals, they understood the need to try to make sure that the process was seen as a genuine commitment to the decentralisation of political power. They therefore enshrined a principle saying that if matters were devolved to the Scottish Parliament, this place would not interfere in those matters and would not determine anything about them without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That principle has stood for 20 years and has not been challenged across the House. Yet, last week, we made history, because for the first time, a United Kingdom piece of legislation that required the consent of the Scottish Parliament was made law although that consent was not given. That is a problem for everyone and it will have to be addressed.

Luke Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tommy Sheppard: I fear we are running out of time, so I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Many Members have talked about the 2014 referendum and the idea—my leader expressed this so well in his opening remarks—that for those 15 hours on 18 September 2014, sovereignty was genuinely in the hands of the people of Scotland. They had a choice to make between two alternative futures, and they chose one. I did not agree with the choice that they made, but I fully respect it—I respect it completely as a decision that they took. However, I tell the House that in the same way that a dog is not only for Christmas, sovereignty is not only for 18 September 2014. Sovereignty means having the ability to change your mind if circumstances change—the ability to adapt and take a new view.
The shadow Secretary of State asked us to imagine a situation—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) commented on this—where a Scottish Parliament was elected in which a majority of its Members had stood on a manifesto suggesting that the people should be consulted in a referendum. She suggested that if the majority voted for that to become the policy of the Scottish Parliament, it would be inappropriate for this Parliament to stand in its way. That was the hon. Lady’s suggestion, and I agree with it. I say to the hon. Lady that the problem is that this is not a matter of hypothesis for the future; this is real, because that was exactly what happened in the Scottish general election 26 months ago, when a mandate was sought and a mandate was given.
As others have said, that mandate is extant, but it will be for the judgment of the Scottish Parliament to determine, when the dust settles on this Brexit mess we are currently in, whether it believes that it is in the best interests of the people of Scotland that they be consulted again on their constitutional future, and on whether they wish to remain part of an isolationist United Kingdom or to be part of opening up to the world and playing their role as an independent country. That day will come, and the claim of right for Scotland means that the people will have the right to exercise their decision on that matter when that time comes.

Stuart Andrew: May I begin by referring to the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), who rightly mentioned the sad death of his constituent, Alesha MacPhail? It is right that we all send our condolences to her family and say that we are with the community at this very difficult time.
I am beginning to realise that these debates become incredibly lively. Last week’s debate in Westminster Hall was just as enjoyable, and I am pleased to be responding to today’s debate. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland suggested, the debate has served no real purpose for Scotland. As he said, we could have debated our preparations for leaving the EU, the economy, or how to address the many and varied failings of the Scottish Government. I would add that we could have debated the expansion of Heathrow airport, and the many benefits that that will bring to Scotland through extra routes and greater opportunities for exporters.  It is no surprise that we are not debating that issue, however, because SNP Members refused to support the proposal. It did so not because that is not good for Scotland—they agree that it is—but because they believed that that stance would be good for the Scottish nationalist party. That, I am afraid, is this debate in a nutshell. It is not about what is right for Scotland; it is about what serves the self-interest of the Scottish National party.

Drew Hendry: Can the Minister name one route that was guaranteed by the UK Government to Heathrow in the national planning statement?

Stuart Andrew: As the hon. Gentleman knows, 15% of the routes are guaranteed for regional connectivity. He has turned down the opportunity for his country to have better connectivity to the rest of the UK and the rest of the world. He says that he wants to stand up for Scotland, but he should take part in the debates that happen here and vote in Divisions, rather than walking out, as he did at Prime Minister’s questions.
The claim of right was about devolution, and we support devolution. This Government have consistently supported devolution ever since it was backed by the people of Scotland in a referendum in 1997. It was the Scottish people who reaffirmed their support for devolution in the independence referendum of 2014. We have shown our support in the Scotland Act 2016, which transferred wide-ranging powers over tax, welfare and much more to Holyrood.
We continue to show our support for devolution as we prepare to leave the EU. Scores of powers previously held in Brussels will flow to the Scottish Parliament, and we are working with the Scottish Government to ensure that Scotland and the whole of the UK are ready. In doing so, we are listening to the people of Scotland. We respect the votes that they cast in 1997 and in 2014. We are respecting their rights, as expressed by the authors of the claim of right.
The truth is that SNP Members cannot bring themselves to show the same respect. They refused to sign the claim of right because it had nothing to do with their cause of independence. They saw devolution only as a stepping stone to independence, and they have shown themselves to be equally opportunistic when it comes to breakfast—[Interruption]—Brexit. Yes, breakfast, dinner and tea, as we say in the north.
Shamefully, SNP Members have no interest in preparing Scotland and the UK for leaving the EU. They see Brexit only as a chance to scaremonger and manufacture grievances in a bid to boost calls for independence. That is their purpose in holding today’s debate, but people will see it for what it is. They will see through the SNP’s games and they will understand that it is not acting in Scotland’s interest, but in its own narrow party interests.

Ian Blackford: Will the Minister give way?

Stuart Andrew: No, the right hon. Gentleman spoke for far too long at the beginning of the debate. In fact, I will come on to a point he made right at the very beginning of his speech. He let the cat out of the bag in the very first few sentences of his contribution when he almost lost his temper. It was clear that this is all about pushing for another Scottish independence referendum. He said that there was a majority for independence in  the Scottish Parliament, but the point is that there was a majority of the people of Scotland who voted no in the independence referendum.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we ripped up the Sewel convention. I really do not understand how he can say that. It does seem that the Scottish Government and some right hon. and hon. Members, when taking part in this debate, appear to have read “not normally”, which is written in the convention, to mean not at all, never, in no circumstances whatsoever. Some Members may wish to change the terms of the convention, but this is the convention that we have.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about this Government wanting to attack the poor. I have to say to him that I find that a really quite disgraceful comment. We have done an enormous amount to turn the economy around. [Interruption.] He can continue to heckle, but I will come on to his behaviour in this debate in a moment. We have record employment. We have lowered taxes. We have taken the poorest out of tax altogether and our national living wage has given the poorest people in this country the biggest increase in their wage for a long time.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we were all about a power grab and that the Secretary of State could not name a single power that would be going to the Scottish Parliament. I really do not understand that. In a previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) spent about half of his speech listing all the powers that will be going to Holyrood. In fact, due to the time limit on his speech, he did not have time to list them all.

Douglas Ross: Does the Minister also accept that, in a debate last week, not a single SNP MP could tell us any powers the Scottish Parliament was losing? Today, every time I tried to intervene on the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) about the power grab, he would not accept it because he knows Scotland is getting a huge number of powers from this Westminster Government as a result of Brexit.

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is part of the process the SNP is trying to use. It is trying to create an image that the Government are trying to take powers away from Scotland when the fact is that, when those powers come from Brussels, when we leave the EU, we will transfer those powers to the Scottish Parliament. That is why Nicola Sturgeon herself has had to increase the size of her Cabinet: because it has more responsibility. Those are not my words, but her words in answer to why we were increasing—

Ian Blackford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just clarify what has been going on here? Through the withdrawal Act, powers that are reserved under the Scotland Act are being taken back by Westminster. That is the reality and that is the fact. No powers are being gifted by Westminster. The Minister is simply wrong.

John Bercow: Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order suffers from the grave disadvantage of not even approximating to or imitating a point of order. As the cheeky grin on the right hon. Gentleman’s face testifies, he knows. He was declined when he sought to  intervene and he therefore opted for the somewhat cheeky ruse of a bogus point of order, but he has made his point.

Stuart Andrew: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I want to challenge the assertion made by various Members of the Scottish nationalists that my hon. Friends who represent Scottish seats should stand up for their constituents. I have the privilege of working with them on a regular basis and I can say that that is what they do day in, day out with great force. They regularly meet Ministers from all sorts of Departments in this Government to fight their corner not just for their constituents but for the whole of Scotland.
Let me refer to other points that were made. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) talked about the tone of this debate. I have to say that I was surprised at the way interventions were rejected by the leader of the SNP, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. There are ways that we behave ourselves in this House. He talked about important issues about education and health—

Joanna Cherry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I hope that it is a point of order, not a point of frustration.

Joanna Cherry: Repeatedly this evening, Government Members have sought to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has done something disorderly. Can the Speaker confirm for the record that he has done nothing disorderly and has not been ruled disorderly this evening? It is character assassination, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I did not find the right hon. Gentleman to be disorderly. I think I said to him at one point that it was perhaps a bit off to say, “Sit down!” to the Minister, but in terms of the right hon. Gentleman’s general conduct, it has been abrasive, but not disorderly.

Stuart Andrew: Mr Speaker, I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman was disorderly. I simply said that I did not think the tone and the behaviour were appropriate for this debate—

Patrick Grady: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.

John Bercow: I was genuinely sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), was not able to conclude his speech. I say that simply because he is the very embodiment of courtesy in the House, but I am afraid that is sometimes the way the cookie crumbles. No personal discourtesy is intended to the hon. Gentleman.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft West Midlands Combined Authority (Business Rate Supplements Functions and Amendment) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 7 June, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - CLOSURE OF SANDFIELD HOUSE

Nicholas Dakin: Mental health services are a very important part of the provision in north Lincolnshire. I pay tribute to Catherine Lydon and others who have helped to pull this petition together of many hundreds of people locally, who are concerned about the closure of Sandfield House, which provides important and effective mental health services to local people.
The Petition states:
The petition of residents of North Lincolnshire,
Declares that Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humber Mental Health NHS Foundation were given notice to cease operating at the site of Sandfield House by North Lincolnshire Council; and further notes that the closure of the community resource would affect more than 1000 people who are being treated there.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to intervene with North Lincolnshire Council to stop the closure of Sandfield House.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002167]

John Bercow: There are a number of petitions to be presented on home education: draft guidance and consultation. I hope that it will be of assistance to the House if I set out how we shall proceed. John Howell will present his petition in the usual way and bring it to the Clerk at the Table, who will read out the title. Subsequent Members should proceed directly to the petitions bag at the back of the Chair. I shall call the next Member immediately after the previous Member has finished speaking. I am advised, so I hope that this is correct—some people may be doing this for the first time; the Chair is your friendly assistant, here to help—that John Howell, Sir Oliver Heald, Laura Smith and Colleen Fletcher will read their petitions to the House in full. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) looks positively horror-struck at the prospective denial of her opportunity to so expatiate. I was going to say, but I cannot be sure that things will turn out this way, that subsequent Members should give a brief description of the number and location of the petitioners and state that the petition is in the same terms. It is fairly obvious why I intend to proceed in this way—so that we can avoid an excessively protracted experience.
I call the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) to present his petition, to which I know the Whip on duty will be listening most attentively and with intense interest.

PETITION - HOME EDUCATION: DRAFT GUIDANCE AND CONSULTATION

John Howell: I wish to present a petition on the subject of home education. The petition is from constituents of Henley. Also included in this mass petition are constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), my right hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), for Reading West (Alok Sharma) and for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Woking (Mr Lord).
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Henley constituency,
Declares that the "Home Education - Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance" has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated; further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002166]

Oliver Heald: The petition of residents of Letchworth garden city shares the same concerns as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). The petitioners are 24 in number.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable  complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declare that the "Home Education - Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance" has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002168]

Laura Smith: I present this petition on behalf of home educators in my constituency who feel that there has been a failure to consult them as stakeholders in the creation of the new guidelines, going against Government policies on consultation.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Crewe and Nantwich constituency,
Declare that the "Home Education - Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance" has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002169]

Colleen Fletcher: I rise to present a petition on behalf of Juliet, Larry and Jemma English, and many others from across the my constituency, on home education. The petition relates to the signatories’ concerns about the Government’s  consultation on draft guidance on elective home education. The crux of their concerns relates to the Government’s failure to include the home education community in the consultation process, the lack of safeguards for parents who home-educate their children, and the imposition of officious regulation on home educators.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Coventry North East constituency,
Declare that the “Home Education—Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002170]

Giles Watling: I rise to present a petition with the same title. It has 42 signatures from Clacton constituents.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Clacton,
Declare that the “Home Education—Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further  has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002174]

Dame Cheryl Gillan: It is with pleasure that I rise to present a petition from residents of Chesham and Amersham, following in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). Home-educating parents play a very important role in our education system. They deserve to be consulted, and they deserve to have an input in the home education that is so important throughout this United Kingdom. The wording of the petition is the same as the wording of the petition presented by my hon. Friend.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Chesham and Amersham,
Declare that the “Home Education—Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002192]

John Bercow: Thank you. That was a very brief oration from a distinguished Dame.

Craig Mackinlay: I rise to present a petition in very similar terms, on behalf of my constituents. It has been signed by 75 people with similar concerns about local authorities and consultation. It states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of United Kingdom,
Declare that the “Home Education—Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002193]

NHS Complaints System: Wales

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Ann Clwyd: I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about something that has been on my mind for a long time.
It is nearly six years since the death of my husband. Some Members will know that he spent his last two weeks on the respiratory ward at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. He was admitted on Tuesday 9 October 2012 to what should have been a caring and safe place. Instead, what we found was the opposite. I left Owen in what I thought was a place of safety, thinking that the hospital could care for him better than we could at home. How wrong I was. Owen went into the hospital mobile, yet spent two weeks crammed in a bed, on a cold, uncaring ward.
Despite the poor care that Owen received, his condition initially settled. In fact, there were provisional plans for him to come home towards the middle of the second week. Sadly, his condition took a turn for the worse. In the early hours of Monday 22 October, I was advised that there was no reasonable chance of his surviving. He lost his final battle the next day. It was then that my battle began: the battle to find out what had happened to him and why.
Many Members will have heard of my concerns regarding the 27 hours he spent on a trolley in the A&E department. A later inquiry identified a number of nursing deficiencies. Sadly, my efforts to obtain information regarding his medical care have been met with considerable obstruction from the board of UHW.
Some time ago, I received help from an experienced NHS consultant, someone who has prepared numerous cases over a period of 30 years when there are allegations relating to clinical negligence. He said—we normally converse in Welsh:
“Ann, roedd gofal Owen yn esgeulus. Hyd yn oed pe fyddai wedi goroesi ei salwch y tro hwn, byddem yn dal I deimlo fod ei ofal yn esgeulus. Yn esgeulus nid yn unig yn ôl safon 2012 ond yn ôl safon 1948, amser dechrau’r Gwasanaeth lechyd.”
That is, in his opinion, Owen’s care during his hospital stay was negligent. In fact, he said that even if Owen had survived his in-patient stay, his level of care would be considered unacceptable, not only by the standards in place in 2012 but by the standards in place at the inception of the NHS in 1948.
My medical friend has pointed out his concerns. He was astonished to find that no doctor saw Owen on either weekend, no consultant saw him, and no junior doctor saw him. I should point out that he was on a respiratory ward in Wales’s flagship teaching hospital. He was not in a convalescent ward; he was not “recuperating” from an acute illness. My late husband was an unwell man with MS, whose long-term disabilities had been made worse by what turned out to be pneumonia that he acquired at that hospital.
Most concerning, according to my medical friend, was the failure of the medical department to have any kind of effective handover arrangement, whereby the doctor going off duty would hand over all the clinical information to the doctor coming on duty. Formal handovers are far more important these days, as the  shift systems of junior doctors means reduced hours. This means that over a weekend a patient may be seen by half a dozen different doctors, all working for the same firm.
Since continuing my inquiries about Owen’s care, I have learned a number of medical terms. I now know about a “low grade temperature” and that this may indicate that there is an infection somewhere, without the doctors being able to find out exactly where. I have also become familiar with the term “inflammatory markers”. Inflammatory markers are blood tests that indicate the presence of infection. When the clinical markers change, and in particular when they increase, it suggests that there is an infection somewhere that is not under control. I will refer to just two.
One is known as the CRP—the C-reactive protein. The normal CRP is less than 10; Owen’s CRP was 22 on admission. Now, 22 is not particularly high, but it suggests that there may be an infection somewhere. Eight days later Owen’s CRP had crept up to 41. The fact that it was increasing—“going the wrong way” as the medics would put it—indicated that he could have an infection that could be going out of control. Owen’s neutrophil count—the type of white blood cell that increases during an infection—was also “going the wrong way”. The normal is less than six. It was 8.7 on his admission—[Interruption.] Excuse me, Mr Speaker; I am sorry, but that is my phone.

John Bercow: That is an extraordinary musical intervention on the right hon. Lady, but I am not sure it is up to her high intellectual standards—but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has come to the rescue, being a selfless public servant as he is.

Ann Clwyd: The normal is less than six; it was 8.7 on his admission, and eight days later it was 10.6.
Doctors will tell us that they do not just look at the results of blood tests; they also look at the patient. In Owen’s case, they failed to look at the blood tests and they failed to look at the patient. Members will no doubt be surprised to hear that although Owen’s inflammatory markers had increased during his second week in hospital, this was not recorded in his clinical notes. The tests that noted the increase in CRP and the neutrophil count were done on the Friday. That was four days before his death from hospital-acquired pneumonia. No one saw the results. No one saw Owen. No doctor saw him on Saturday. No doctor saw him on Sunday. By Monday it was too late. I think it is reasonable to assume that if Owen had received effective antibiotics when his inflammatory markers were increasing, he would have stood a fighting chance and would have survived that infection.
I continue to be shocked by the way the hospital board has dealt with my concerns. Members might have heard of so-called independent reports. There was nothing independent about this particular report. All the members were employees of the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board. The chair was the deputy nursing director, Mandy Rayani. The board’s investigation failed to comment on the medical deficiencies that I have mentioned, but it very quickly acknowledged my “adverse perception” of what happened.
Most of my claims of poor care were denied. Of the 31 concerns that I raised, 21 were rejected. This was despite the fact that a few weeks after my husband’s  death, Health Inspectorate Wales, the body that inspects Welsh hospitals, visited the ward where my husband had been a patient. While they were inspecting the ward, they noticed that senior nurses went off for their lunch leaving patients who needed assistance to eat without any help, that some patients were found without buzzers to call for assistance, and that individual care plans were not in place for the patients, yet my concerns were dismissed as my “adverse perception” by the deputy director of nursing, Mandy Rayani, in UHW’s so-called independent report.
I remain unhappy with the attitude of the health board. When Owen died, the chief executive was Adam Cairns. He has now left the country and is working in the middle east. When he left, I took my complaint up with other executives and I have found—as I did when I was writing my report for the Government on hospital complaints—that the culture of deny, delay and defend has continued.
I wrote to Maria Battle, the chair of the health board. I wanted to know why no one had spotted the abnormal blood results. I wanted to know why Owen’s low grade temperature did not appear to be of concern to anyone. The first meeting was postponed. We eventually met on 2 August last year. Despite my PA telephoning the board to ask for a copy of its response a week earlier, my medical colleague and I were not allowed to see the report until we arrived in the building for our meeting. I was astonished to hear Ruth Walker, the senior nurse, saying that she had taken it upon herself not to release the report prior to the meeting. I would have expected such a decision to be made by Maria Battle as chair of the board, by Dr Graham Shortland, the medical director, given that the matters mainly related to medical care, or by Dr Sharon Hopkins, who at that time was the acting chief executive.
I believe that the decision of the board to refuse to release this document beforehand reflects its dismissive, insulting and gratuitous attitude to members of the public and to the families of loved ones. It reflects the overall cover-up mentality that is all-pervasive in this health board.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing this debate and on the very personal and poignant way in which she has told the story of her husband’s last few days in hospital. Has she at any stage considered referred this matter to the medical ombudsperson and asking them to investigate her complaint? Hopefully they would come up with an answer that would satisfy her and perhaps give the Minister a way of taking this forward.

Ann Clwyd: I am grateful for that kind intervention, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been down all the official routes.
At the meeting, I soon discovered that it was impossible to get straight answers to my straightforward questions. Ruth Walker, for example, said that the problems of Owen’s care have been addressed by the introduction of the EWS—early warning signs— system. When my medical colleague pointed out to her that all the nursing notes were entered in the EWS format, she could not come up with an explanation. I was also astonished that Dr Shortland was unable to give a straight answer when  asked about the arrangements for weekend medical cover. The board members were prepared to hide behind another independent report, but the report was incomplete, failing to comment on Owen’s continuing low grade fever, the rise in his white blood cells, the rise in his C-reactive protein count, the failure of an effective handover process between medical staff, and why no doctor saw Owen during his two weekends in hospital.
I have always been a strong supporter of our national health service. I can be proud of representing Cynon Valley, a constituency which is both geographically and philosophically close to the community that bred Aneurin Bevan. It was the community that formed Bevans’ views on the need for an effective health service that is free at the point of need and where the quality of care is not influenced by one’s ability to pay.
Long before becoming a politician, I was on the Welsh Hospital Board from 1970 to 1974 with people such as Arianwen Bevan-Norris, who was Aneurin Bevan’s sister, and Archie Lush, his agent, and I know what they would be saying to me today: “Carry on. Keep on going.” They would not have accepted these kinds of answers. I was also the only Welsh member of the royal commission on the national health service, which met for three years from 1976 to 1979. We made many recommendations at the time, but they were unfortunately not acted upon. If they had been, I am sure that some of today’s problems would have been avoided.
The House will understand my sorrow at the loss of Owen. It is heartbreaking to find that the people whom we appoint to safeguard our services, and who benefit from a significant income and a highly respected position in our society, are unable to address the failings of their organisation, engaging instead in obfuscation and half-truths. The cover-up mentality has to stop. We all make mistakes, but we should be ready to admit them.
My case is not unusual. I have previously told the House of the thousands of letters I received from people from all over the country when I was producing a report for the Government on complaints in England. I knew that the NHS did not treat its complainants well, but I did not expect to be here still looking for answers nearly six years later. In the past, Mr Speaker has allowed me to read out letters that I have received, and more than 4,500 people have written to me about NHS complaints, 500 of which related to the University Hospital of Wales. I am sorry to say that two of my close friends have since died at the same hospital, and complaints have been made about their treatment as well.
In the introduction to the shocking report on Gosport War Memorial Hospital, which was published a few weeks ago, Bishop James Jones of Liverpool said that
“what has to be recognised by those who head up our public institutions is how difficult it is for ordinary people to challenge the closing of ranks of those who hold power. It is a lonely place, seeking answers to questions that others wish you were not asking.”
I will continue to ask those questions on behalf of my family and of the many others who are grieving and who have not had answers.

Stuart Andrew: I begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for securing this important debate. I know how incredibly personal this is for her. Her being able to stand in this Chamber  to talk so movingly and so passionately about her late husband’s time in hospital, and her dedication to trying to bring about a service that is fit for everybody, is commendable.
Prior to being elected to this House, I had the great privilege of working in the hospice movement. One thing I take from that time is that, when a relative is as poorly as the right hon. Lady’s husband was, it is not just the patient who we need to think about. We need to think about family members, too, because it is an incredibly stressful time, and I am sorry to hear her account. I have read some of the reports of interviews she has given over the years since the death of her husband, and giving those interviews takes an enormous amount of inner courage. She certainly has my admiration.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important matter of NHS complaints in Wales, and I commend the right hon. Lady for her excellent work over the past few years, particularly her review of NHS complaints handling in England. The review was welcome, and many of its recommendations have been put into action in the NHS across England.
This has obviously been an interesting debate because of that aspect, and the right hon. Lady will know, as other hon. Members will know, that the national health service in Wales is, of course, primarily a devolved area and responsibility for it lies with the Welsh Government. Generally, this Government have responsibility only for the NHS in England. As I hope the House will appreciate, there is a limit to the extent to which I can comment on some of the issues under discussion today, but I will respond to as many points as possible. I am also more than happy to ensure that a transcript of this debate is sent to the responsible Minister in the Senedd in Cardiff.
Our national health service is hugely valued by people in Wales, as was clearly demonstrated over the weekend by the townspeople of Tredegar, who marched through the streets to commemorate its 70th anniversary. Millions of people in Wales and the rest of the UK access the NHS every day and receive the excellent service they deserve and to which they are entitled. We should recognise the unstinting efforts of all those working in all parts of the NHS across the UK who contribute to that service, but that should not prevent us from looking at ourselves critically when things go wrong and from putting those things right.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has put an awful amount of emphasis on improving standards. Of course staff across the NHS in Wales and the rest of the UK want to do their best, and I am the first to acknowledge that that is often in very stressful situations.
Frankly, patients and their loved ones can be nervous about complaining. Older people, in particular, often do not want, as they see it, to make a fuss. They can sometimes worry that, by complaining, their care may  somehow be adversely affected, which is clearly not what the right hon. Lady, I or anyone else wants. By putting in place an open, transparent and confident complaints system, we can assure patients, young and old, that their complaints will be dealt with fairly and openly, and they need not fear raising them. Both patients and staff within the NHS need to be assured that they are being listened to and properly supported through the complaints process. We need an effective complaints system operating within a supportive organisational structure and led by strong, confident leadership at all levels—that is an important part of an effective complaints process. Only an organisation with an open culture that is willing to look seriously at itself can be trusted to investigate properly how it operates.
Complaints need to be handled promptly and in a timely manner, and, of course, responses should be accurate and should fully address the issues raised in complaints. An open culture with strong leadership can prevent a hospital or health board from responding defensively to a complaint, seeking to limit damage to its own reputation at the expense of patient care. Many people across the UK, including the right hon. Lady, complain not just to gain redress for themselves or a loved one, but to help to ensure that others are not faced with the same, often painful and traumatic issue in the future.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development said yesterday,
“one of the strengths of having a four-nation healthcare system is that we learn from each other and share good ideas while providing the service that is best tailored for people in their particular locality.”—[Official Report, 3 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 183.]
I completely agree with her and with that sentiment, and I think we can and should all learn from each other. I want the health services in Wales and in the rest of the UK to be known as learning organisations and to be known across the world for providing the best healthcare in the world. I believe that the extra funding that we have announced, which will come to the Welsh Government, too, over the next five years, will present us with an opportunity to improve the patient experience across the country.
In closing, I want to say to the right hon. Lady that I appreciate the time she has taken to bring this debate to the House. As I said, I will make sure that a transcript of this debate and the points and concerns she has raised is given to the Ministers in the Welsh Government. I pay tribute to her remarkable dedication to making sure that the service provided in hospitals in Wales and across the UK is second to none and that people can feel confident in the care that they receive.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.